GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

More Evidence the “Surge” is Working

by

While one “insurgent” leader responsible for the violence in Iraq, Moqtada al Sadr, has fled Baghdad, another has been wounded. According to the Associated Press, “ The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was wounded and an aide was killed in a clash Thursday with Iraqi forces north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said.” (Via The Corner).

UPDATE: Pajamas offers firsthand account of the appearance of the “surge” in the streets of Baghdad.

UP-UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds (AKA |nstapundit) links Strategypage’s largely upbeat analysis of the situation in Iraq, noting the disarray of a number of militias. Glenn also references Jules Crittenden’s post offering the good and bad news from that emerging democracy, including the news that many Iraqis “want the surge to succeed.” Read both posts!

UP-UP-UPDATE: Reader Peter Hughes e-mailed an article reporting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki believes that the new security plan “had seen dazzling success during its first days.”

Comments

  3. Dumb logic:

    If the surge works, the Democrats were wrong.

    If the surge doesn’t work, it’s the Democrat’s fault.

    Either way, Republicans win!

    Additional soldiers who die–not so much.

  10. Jonah Goldberg on Democrat posturing:

    [Congressional Democrats] fawned on Gen. David Petraeus like schoolgirls, confirming him as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq almost instantly, but they denounce the escalation he helped design and is tasked with implementing. And on the floor of the House this week, they bared their teeth to Bush while bragging about how their resolution is toothless.

    Not to mention the embrace of Murtha’s “slow bleed,” strategy… sending in troops, but depriving them of the armor, materiel, and support they need to win. Real patriots would be ashamed of the way the Democrats are setting the troops up to lose, in hopes of being rewarded politically. And Murtha should be exposed for the traitor that he is.

  12. To all who casually throw around charges of sedition (Vince) and traitor (V), you’ve got a lot to learn from a REAL Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. He wouldn’t recognize the Bizzaro, lock-stepping party we see today.

    [Lock-stepping party? You must be looking at the GOP of your imagination and not that of reality. For, at any given time, any number of Republicans, has bucked the president. –Ed.]

    In 1918 (during WWI), he said “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

  15. Only michael in his petty mind can equate active Congression undermining of our troops with simple presidential criticism.

    Please michael dont ascribe me with the same simple-mindness that passes for Leftist thinking these days.

  16. “Real patriots would be ashamed of the way the Democrats are setting the troops up to lose”

    Is that “preemptive spin”?

    But lets face it Petraeus has been the golden boy of the left. In the book Fiasco he was the only hero. The NYT has written countless pro Petraeus stories and his background has everything a liberal will like. That is why he was quickly confirmed.

  17. #15: Vince P, the thing is, lefties engage in name-calling all the time without having any rationale to back it up. They don’t realize that someone can actually label Murtha a traitor and mean it, even when the reasons he deserves that label are explicitly spelled out.

  18. I wonder how we’re supposed to take folks like Keogh seriously? Are we to believe he doesn’t know what the Democrats are doing?

    What is with the delusion these seditious people insist on clinging to? They are beyond objective reasoning.

  19. Both PMSNBC and Fox are now reporting that Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri is now in custody.

    And just for the record – an ugly American is defined as one who is not patriotic. Deal with it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  21. Vince, Fox is reporting that there are conflicting reports regarding al-Masri. However, his deputy has been detained according to Iraqi police:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252263,00.html

    Also – it appears as though the violence in Iraq has now been curtailed significantly after the border closings and the new curfews. And on top of that, al-Sadr is for sure in Iran. I guess he didn’t have the cojones to face US/Iraqi troops, because he knew he’d end up like al-Zarqawi.

    Let’s roll.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  22. I think Murtha needs to be arrested.

    WASHINGTON — A powerful Democrat and Iraq war foe said he intends to introduce legislation in the coming weeks that would effectively end President Bush’s plans to send 21,500 more troops into Iraq by setting limits on which troops can be sent.

    Using an unusual medium — a recorded interview posted on the Internet — Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said his bill would prevent troops from being sent back to Iraq too soon or too poorly equipped. Troops being sent back to Iraq for another tour would have to stay in the United States at least one year before being redeployed. The bill would also end “stop-loss” policies by preventing the president from retaining troops in Iraq after their enlistments expire.

    Murtha, who is chairman of the defense subcommittee to the House Appropriations Committee, said he is formulating legislation with teeth because he doesn’t think Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad and al Anbar province would accomplish the goals of bringing peace to the country or returning troops home sooner.

    The Bush administration “won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment. They don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work,” Murtha said in the post on the Democrat-friendly Web site MoveCongress.org. “This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop this surge.”

  23. Why does Murtha Focker refer to both the President and the troops as “they?” Wasn’t he a soldier as well? Does that mean that he is distancing himself from our armed forces?

    I guess Murtha made his choice. He is referring to the troops as “they” and not “we.” Any soldier, active or retired, considers themselves as one of the troops. So for Murtha to say “they,” he is proving what side of the war he is on.

    Time to reinstate the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1791.

    You are either with America, or you are with the terrorists. Murtha chose his side. Now he has to live with it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  24. I wonder how we’re supposed to take folks like Keogh seriously?

    Sorry to say, you’re not the first.

    A very general comment about criticizing the President, the war, whatever – People should always keep in mind the following:

    1) The difference between destructive and constructive criticism.

    2) The difference between criticism that wants to see America win in Iraq, and criticism that wants to see America fail in Iraq.

    3) Among other things, war is a conflict over HOPE: making the evil give up, by denying them hope. And so: the difference between criticism that denies the enemy hope, and criticism that gives the enemy hope. The latter undoes our troops’ work, thus prolonging the war needlessly and causing actual deaths of our troops and of Iraqi civilians.

  25. http://www.juancole.com:

    Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Muqtada al-Sadr and several leaders of his movement as well as commanders of his Mahdi Army are present in the southern marshlands of Iraq, a place in which dissidents in the former Baath regime used to hide out. The marshes have been re-flooded and are at 40% of their original area, and they do give good protection to anyone wishing to hide out. The Marsh Arab inhabitants of the swamps have largely become followers of Sadr, and so would protect him. They are in an area of Iraq that borders Iran and which serves as a smuggling route between the two countries, which may have given rise to the idea that Muqtada was on his way to Iran. He more likely is holed up in the marshes. This is the most plausible story I have seen yet on Muqtada’s disappearance.

    Jalal Talabani’s account that Muqtada ordered his aides to Iran makes no sense at all given Muqtada’s longstanding problem with Iran’s authority in Shiism and his and his father’s position that Iraqis should stay in Iraq even if they are in danger.

  26. I have a hard time taking Juan Cole seriously:

    http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1782

    Excerpt

    The level of conspiracy thinking normally associated with geopolitical amateurs like Lyndon Larouche and Noam Chomsky typifies Cole’s theorizing. When Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonel sponsored by the political left critical of U.S. policy in Iraq, analyzed the war aims of the Neocon network, Cole berated her for not pointing to a Jewish conspiracy. “I am surprised,” said Cole, “she left out what surely was the Neocons’ major concern, which is that Iraq, Iran and Syria stood in the way of Ariel Sharon’s continued theft of Arab land in the Occupied territories and potentially elsewhere.”

    Cole has also made such fact-stretching statements as, “[m]uch of the Arab world has a formal peace treaty with Israel,” and “[c]hemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction.”

    Showing a typical contempt for evidence that even CBS accepted, Cole states that “Saddam Hussein never gave any real support to the Palestinian cause, and he did not pay suicide bombers to blow themselves up.” In fact Saddam not only provided $25,000 per suicide bomber but $74 million directly to the terrorist organization Hamas. And even Saddam did pay money to the families of these murderers, Cole insists, “Supporting orphans [of dead suicide bombers] is, in any case, not the same as funding terrorism.” One must wonder whether making orphans is, in Cole’s eyes, terrorism.

    Cole is capable of dangerous sophistry regarding his own chosen subject of study. “Are there Muslims who are fascists?” says Cole. “Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since ‘Islam’ has to do with the highest ideals of the religion.” He applies a particularly brazen double standard, decrying the term “Islamo-fascist” as a “thoroughly abhorrent” form of bigotry, even as he routinely brands Zionism (without any hyphen) “racist” and “fascist.”

  29. #25 – That just shows, once more, what an idiot Juan Cole is. LOL 🙂

    First – Assume Sadr is indeed hiding among the Marsh Arabs. The whole point remains: he is hiding. Get it?

    Second – According to this New York Times article, Sadr, far from having “[a] longstanding problem with Iran’s authority in Shiism and [a] position that Iraqis should stay in Iraq”, has often gone to Iran.

    Mr. Askari said he did not understand why either the Americans or Mr. Sadr’s group were making such a fuss [over Sadr’s flight]. The cleric has frequently traveled to Iran, he said…

    Askari is a Shiite politician on the scene in Iraq. Filip, do you think he might know better than Juan Cole?

    Welcome to life outside the lefty echo chamber.

  31. Yeah, it’s working.

    Escalating Truth
    by George Lakoff

    [GP Ed. Note:  Chet, this is way too long for a comment.  Put a link here so people can go read it.  Worthy article, but way too long for a comment!]

  32. This is good:

    “It is time to pull our troops out . . . . The longer we stay in . . . the more chance we have of being sucked into another Vietnam in that region. …Our troops must come home now. Therefore, if given the opportunity I intend to offer an amendment to the fiscal year . . . Defense appropriations bill that would require that our troops be pulled out . . . 15 days after the President signs the appropriations bill. That is more than enough time for an orderly withdrawal….We have run out of excuses for remaining . . . . It is time to come home.”

    — Rep. Ed Markey speaking on the floor of the House…

    about the invasion of Grenada…

    in 1983.

  36. Has anyone noticed…is the “war on Poverty” still on going? 40 years and counting.
    When oh when will it end? The lives lost , the treasure lost, the humiliation.

  37. Please, michael – if you read the A&S Act, it criminalized criticism of Congress “during periods of internal and external conflict.”

    If anyone wants to try to argue the point about that statement being applicable today, have at it. I’d love to see the ACLU try to defend my rights. THAT will be a memorable occasion.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  38. Something is going on inside Iran

    http://kamangir.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/second-explosion-in-zahedan/

    Second Explosion in Zahedan (Updated II)
    Posted by kamangir on February 16th, 2007

    Fars: A second explosion in Zahedan. Tonight, local time, a huge explosion occurred in Zahedan.

    Update: Reports of gunfire after the explosion (Baztab).

    Update: IRNA has the same report.

    Update: Fars: After a fairly strong explosion in a girls’ school, terrorists attacked pedestrians. The Police has circled the area and the terrorists are fighting back.

    Update: Baztab: Before the explosion, Police finds a bomb in front of a Police car. they fail to defuse the bomb, which is claimed to have been a a noise bomb. Fierce fighting is reported.

    Update: Fars: The terrorists fled.

    Update: Fars: Rigi, the head of Jondollah, announced the operation, a few minuted before it started, in MKO

  39. Pete,

    In post #23 you call for the reinstatement of A&S to prosecute Murtha.

    In post #37 you say you can criticize Murtha because A&S isn’t applicable.

    So do you want it reinstated or don’t you? You are incoherent.

  40. michael: not very nuanced of you.

    His latter point, I think, was to say it would be seditious to attack Congress if that attack was meant to harm the war. The attack he made was against the seditious faction of Congress, so no, he wasn’t incoherent. They were seperate yet related points.

  42. The point is that sedition is a serious charge and you throw it around quite casually. When President Bush concedes that things are not going well in Iraq, one could say he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. One could say he is criticizing the troops for poor performance. Should he be charged with sedition too? According to your standards, why not?

  43. Peter — You really listen to Rush Limbaugh? LOL.

    LOLOLOLOL.

    Let’s see: whose arguments will I take seriously — a fat hypocritical drug addict, or a distinguished professor of political linguistics?

    Hmmmm….. Oh, and Rush isn’t a “partisan hack?” Okay, Peter, I get it now.

    Let me think on it.

    “Regards,”

    Chet

  44. The point is that sedition is a serious charge and you throw it around quite casually

    No. I throw it quite deliberately. The unprecedented actions by Democrats in Congress are totally disgraceful and a breach of the Cinches authority. Who does Congress think it is ? We’re fighting a freakin war with Boudiuns , who’s entire religion is based on war.

    We can’t give one inch to those fanatics.. and half the government is sending out signals of surrender.

    It’s sedition!

  47. Concise Oxford English Dictionary 2002 says

    sedition: conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a state or monarch

    treason: the crime of betraying one’s country, especially [but not only] by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government

    traitor: A person who betrays their country, a cause, etc.

    Vince, I’d go with treason. Iraq is sovereign; we (the U.S.) are not the authority or State being incited against there.

  52. But the President is not the State.

    When one branch usurps the powers of another, it is wrong, unconstitutional, and (depending on the context) possibly treasonous and impeachable. As technically distinct from seditious.

  57. Vince,

    I linked to an article by Lakoff, a respected scholar even though he’s a democrat. All I got back was some stupid comment about Lakoff’s name by RUSH LIMBAUGH.

    Who’s insulting whom?

    –Chet

  58. You expect me to read something that characterizes the couragous struggle our army is bearing as “wack a mole”?

    you’ll have to pursuade me a bit more. i read a lot of things and dont like to read the usual anti-american stuff.

  59. Chet, your attitude and language betray the shrill leftist that you are. And frankly, I am tired of trying to explain these things to you. It would be easier for me to explain the theory of relativity to a five-year-old than try to explain simple civics to you.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  60. #42 – Well, michael-of-the-lower-case, I think that “impeachment” is a serious charge, but your side of the aisle seems to find no problem in throwing that around. So why are you so wound up over “sedition?”

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  61. #47 – Cal, the dictionary definition of “treason” would be a good choice, but under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, treason is the only crime defined by constitutional law in this country.

    In order to be found guilty of treason, a U.S. citizen must do all three of the following:

    1. offer aid/comfort to the enemy
    2. declare war on the US, either within the country or outside its borders
    3. swear either in court or before two witnesses that he/she is fighting or supporting a fight against the US.

    Unfortunately, people like Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda are just one step removed from being convicted of treason. Although frankly speaking, I think Jane could have been convicted based upon her statements in Hanoi during the Vietnam War. Too bad no DA’s or public defenders had the cojones to do that.

    Regards,
    Peter H.