Oh, how I LOVE this, Lynne Cheney taking on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. The MSM is not used to people jumping ugly on them. This is beautiful.
Lynne Cheney: What is CNN doing running terrorist tapes of terrorists shooting Americans?..Why are you running terrorist propaganda?
Wolf Blitzer: With all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.
Lynne Cheney: (Incredulous) Oh, Wolf
Wolf Blitzer: This is reporting the news, this is what we do.
One of my favorite authors Mona Charen provides 13 very strong reasons to vote GOP in the upcoming election in today’s Jewish World Review.
Republicans have abundant reasons to reserve a spot at their polling places on Election Day:
1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, “What more do you want?” The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.
2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven’t materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats â?? at least so long as The New York Times isn’t publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.
Read the other 11 reasons to vote GOP here
Needless to say, I agree with Mona’s assessment 100%.
I just read the transcript of the president’s speech/press conference yesterday and was very impressed with the way in which he described the current situation in Iraq. I thought it was a very fair assessment overall in terms of where we are at, our under-reported accomplishments, our challenges going forward, what victory means, benchmarks for victory in Iraq, and what we need to accomplish in the near term to achieve those goals.
But the best part to me was this exchange with an un-named reporter:
Reporter: And what happens if a full-fledged civil war breaks out?
BUSH: Our job is to prevent the full – full-scale civil war from happening in the first place. It’s one of the missions, is to work with the Maliki government to make sure that there is a political way forward that says to the people of Iraq, It’s not worth it. Civil war is not worth the effort – by them.
That’s the whole objective: to help this government be able to defend itself and sustain itself, so that the 12 million people that voted – they didn’t vote for civil war. They voted to live under a constitution that was passed.
And so we will work to prevent that from happening.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a democracy, for a variety of reasons. And it’s in our interests that the forces of moderation prevail, in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
A defeat there – in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would embolden extremists who would say, You know, we were right about America in the first place, that America did not have the will necessary to do the hard work.
BUSH: That’s precisely what Osama bin Laden has said, for example.
A defeat there would make it easier for people to be able to recruit extremists and kids to be able to use their tactics to destroy innocent life. A defeat there would dispirit people throughout the Middle East who wonder whether America is genuine in our commitment to moderation and democracy.
And I told you what the scenario could look like 20 or 30 years from now if we leave before the job is done. It’s a serious business. And that’s why I say it’s the call of this generation.
And I understand how tough it is, see? But I also said in my remarks, just because the enemy has been to, you know, make some progress doesn’t mean we should leave. Quite the contrary. We ought to do everything we can to help prevent them from making progress, and that is what our strategy is.
I have always said that when Bush speaks from the heart extempoaneously he is at his best. And this answer that he gives to the un-named reporter is the best most succinct justification for why we are in Iraq and why we need to stay until we have achieved ultimate victory there.
And regardless of what the Democrats would like you to believe about this election (that it’s about the “culture of corruption” (Foley), negative GOP ads (Harold Ford), and extremist conservative Christians (who oppose embryonic stem-cell research) the mid-term I believe will be primarily about the #1 issue of our generation- the War on Islamic Terrorism- and despite our challenges in Iraq and elsewhere- I believe that the American people share the president’s view about why we are there and why we must not leave (i.e. “strategic redeployment”). They don’t share Howard Dean’s view that Iraq is “unwinable” or that it is an “intractable quagmire.”
The American people are smarter than the liberals give them credit for. I believe that most Americans think that we can and will win in Iraq if we can unite around this common cause. The problem is that Democrats have been more concerned with victory in November than they have been in ensuring victory in Iraq. And their constant crticisms, bitterness, and sniping has only made it appear as thought the US has been anything but “united” around a common cause which of course has only strengthened the resolve of our enemies who pray on submissiveness, fear, and dissent.
Bush should have been delivering this message more often-which partially explains his 40% approval rating. But it is better late than never. Victory in Iraq means a crushing defeat for the terrorists. One side is for seing it through in Iraq. The other side is for quitting. They call it “strategic redeplyment” but we all know it means “cutting and running” in Iraq (The Democrat’s forte).
It is one thing to have a reasoned debate about tactics and strategy. But the Democrats have crossed the line and have in many people’s opinion actively aided and abetted the Jihadist enemy. Trust me the American people know the difference. And that is the reason that the GOP will retain control of both houses of Congress November 7th.
I’ve been wondering why Hub Blog’s Jay Fitzgerald hadn’t posted anything in a while, during the height of campaign season. Now I know,
My mother died over the weekend. Here’s her obit. So much has been said about her in recent days. She was variously described as caring, loving, passionate, intense and the list goes on. They’re all accurate. But my favorite description came from a brother, who said, ‘She was a force of nature. They don’t make them like her anymore.’ She was indeed a classic matriarch — always in motion and thinking of others right to the end. I got to say a long good-bye and, numerous times, tell her how much I loved her, as did others, and I feel blessed we had those hard but miraculous last days, weeks and months with her. She led a beautiful life — and left behind beautiful memories.
Jay is a great guy, one of the best business reporters in Boston. My condolences to you and your family.
Michael Fumento has just written one tough piece on the MSM coverage of Iraq. In my mind, Fumento can say whatever he wants, he’s walked the walk, as a soldier and as a reporter
Covering Iraq: The Modern Way of War Correspondence
Would you trust a Hurricane Katrina report datelined â??direct from Detroitâ?� Or coverage of the World Trade Center attack from Chicago? Why then should we believe a Time Magazine investigation of the Haditha killings that was reported not from Haditha but from Baghdad? Or a Los Angeles Times article on a purported Fallujah-like attack on Ramadi reported by four journalists in Baghdad and one in Washington? Yet we do, essentially because we have no choice. A war in a country the size of California is essentially covered from a single city. Plug the name of Iraqi cities other than Baghdad into Google News and youâ??ll find that time and again the reporters are in Iraqâ??s capital, nowhere near the scene. Capt. David Gramling, public affairs officer for the unit Iâ??m currently embedded with, puts it nicely: â??I think it would be pretty hard to report on Baghdad from out here.â? Welcome to the not-so-brave new world of Iraq war correspondence.
Further down in the essay, he mentions a friend of Pundit Review who’s been there, done that,
But Patrick Dollard, with no military training, left a cushy job as Oscar-winning director Steven Soderberghâ??s agent to bunk down with Marines in Ramadi for seven months to film a documentary series (still being edited) that he hopes will show the real war and the real warriors.
He sure did. Listen to Pat Dollard’s interview on Pundit Review Radio here.
During that interview, we took the most unforgettable call we have ever received on Pundit Review from an Army wife and mother, you won’t believe the emotion!
Our friend Michael Yon has an entirely different take on embedd reporters in Iraq, laying the blame squarely on the military, not the media. Here is Michael’s column which is published in this week’s Weekly Standard.
Censoring Iraq
Why are there so few reporters with American troops in combat? Don’t blame the media.
Many blame the media for the estrangement, but part of the blame rests squarely on the chip-laden shoulders of key military officers and on the often clueless Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad, which doesn’t manage the media so much as manhandle them. Most military public affairs officers are professionals dedicated to their jobs, but it takes only a few well-placed incompetents to cripple our ability to match and trump al Sahab. By enabling incompetence, the Pentagon has allowed the problem to fester to the point of censorship.
You can listen to Michael’s many appearances on Pundit Review Radio by clicking here and looking in our milblogger archives.
These are two tough guys who have written two tough pieces, each placing the blame for the lousy coverage of Iraq on different forces. They are both well worth your time.
Larry Elder writes in Jewish World Review online in an open letter to Andy Rooney of “60 Minutes”:
You ask, in your recent “60 Minutes” commentary, for the president to finally flat-out “explain” why we have troops in Iraq. While busy preparing your commentaries, you perhaps failed to hear the president explain this â?? over and over and over again.
Allow me to try.
The world changed for many â?? apparently not you â?? after 9/11.
Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam’s military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.
Entire Article Here
Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute has this piece in today’s Frontpagemagazine.com
In the article Mr. Rubin explores the significance of what the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s reccomendation to “abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor” would mean for U.S. foreign policy.
If the administration is seriously considering this proposed strategy, I believe that it will be disasterous for America and long term peace, security, and freedom in the Mid-East. It would be viewed by our enemies as appeasement pure and simple.
No doubt former secretary of state Baker is an seasoned diplomat. However, as Rubin points out, his record with regard to Med-East policy/negotiations should be appropriately considered. And his record is far from stellar.
In the Middle East, Baker’s legacy is twofold. As secretary of state, he presided over the 1989 Taif Accords, which ended Lebanon’s civil war. By blessing Syrian military occupation, he sacrificed Lebanese independence on the altar of short-term pragmatism. Many Iraqis–Sunni elites and former officers especially–fear Washington may repeat the episode in their country. They fear Baker’s cold realist calculations may surrender Iraq to Iranian suzerainty. While Americans may nonetheless welcome short-term calm, in terms of U.S. security, the Taif model failed: Damascus used its free hand to gut civil society and turn Lebanon into a safe haven for terror.
Part 2 of the Baker Legacy:
Iraqis remember him for his role in Operation Desert Storm. On February 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called upon Iraqis to “take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside.” Iraqis did rise up, but Baker counseled U.S. forces to stand aside as Saddam turned his helicopter gunships on the rebellious Kurds and Shiites. Had more commission members exited the Green Zone, they might have found that among the greatest impediments U.S. forces and diplomats face in Iraq is the experience of betrayal that Baker imprinted on their country. Washington’s adversaries have capitalized on this legacy. The foolishness of Iraqis’ trusting Washington has been a constant theme in Iranian propaganda. Should the Baker-Hamilton Commission also recommend abandoning democracy–which the Shiites understand as their right to power–and urge a political accord with Sunni insurgents, they would push 16 million Iraqi Shiites beyond possibility of accord and into the waiting embrace of an Iranian regime that, paid militias aside, most Iraqis resent.
I agree with Mr. Rubin’s analysis here. Bush needs to stick to his guns and not abandon the Bush Doctrine no matter how many trials and tribulations along the way. The Iraqis need to know that we will stand by there side until they can ably defend themselves. If they feel that we will abandon them as many liberals are calling for with “strategic redeployment” blood will run in the streets throughout Iraq.
While we certainly need to constantly fine-tune our tactics and strategy to ensure victory in Iraq and acknowledge that war in not a perfect science and that Democracy is “messy,” this is no time to go “wobbly” (in the immortal words of Lady Thatcher) Mr. President. I hope the president sticks to his guns and remembers his promise to the Iraqi people that America will never abandon the Iraqi people. Let’s be true to our word! Abandon the Baker-Hamilton strategy and reassert the Bush Doctrine. The world is watching.