« 'All right, who invited Congress?' | Main | Barbara Boxer - Insufferable Bitch* »

January 11, 2007

Iraq -- MM, VDH and BDS

Michelle Malkin makes her first report from Baghdad.

Having met, watched, and interviewed a broad cross-section of our troops during our brief but fruitful travels, my faith in the U.S. military has never been stronger-- but I will not sugarcoat my skepticism and doubts about decisions being made in Washington.
Check out the pics.

Victor Davis Hanson has the last (and best) word on the President's speech last night.

So the increase — no one knows whether the 20,000 number is adequate — could make things far worse by offering more targets and creating more Iraqi dependency if we don’t change our operations. But if the surge ups the ante by bringing a radical new approach on the battlefield as the president promises, then it is worth his gamble. [...]

...note the pathetic Democratic reply by Sen. Durbin, last in the public eye for his libel of American troops (as analogous to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others”). There was no response. [...]

...So where does that leave us? [...] In other words, as in all wars, the pulse of the battlefield will determine the ensuing politics. So let’s win in pursuit of victory, and everything else will sort itself out.

As for the usual dreck from the Ted Kennedy side of the aisle (I swear, Uncle Teddy got his first erection in thirty years by announcing this as the optimal plan for Iraq. Wants to relive his "glory" days, I suppose.) ... I stop reading the "reviews" when the writers delve into the usual BDS memes (dictator, puppet of Zionists, to get his dad's approval, too stupid and mean, hates brown people, the ooooiiiiillll ...) yada yada yada.

Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at January 11, 2007 06:37 AM

Comments

I ask again: is Michelle going to post bail for Jamil Hussein?

Posted by: Brad at January 11, 2007 10:40 AM

Why aren't you there, Brad?

Oh wait, sorry. Wrong link. I meant this army. You have much more in common with them.

Posted by: Beth at January 11, 2007 01:59 PM

Beth,

How so? Please provide some justification for your calling me a terrorist. I have never killed, nor advocated the death of, anybody.

Posted by: Brad at January 11, 2007 02:57 PM

I might as well ask you the same question, Beth: why aren't you over in Iraq fighting for freedom? Would you sacrifice your son, daughter, or brother to liberate Baghdad?

Posted by: Brad at January 11, 2007 03:01 PM

I wonder if she's going to do any actual reporting, or if it will all be this feel good fluff crap.

Posted by: Josh at January 11, 2007 08:55 PM

I ask again: is Michelle going to post bail for Jamil Hussein?

That would be a little difficult, since "Jamil Gholaiem Hussein" apparently may not exist, despite the AP's recent claim to the contrary.

On the other hand, Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim, who does exist and is a real Iraqi police officer at the Khadra station, is not being charged with anything since he denies speaking with any media.

I wonder if she's going to do any actual reporting, or if it will all be this feel good fluff crap.

So stories about sectarian killings and the deaths of US troops at the hands of snipers and IEDs are "actual reporting", while stories about positive things that US troops are doing for ordinary Iraqis and interviews with Iraqis who actually like and support Americans are just "feel good fluff crap"?

Nope, no bias there.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 12, 2007 08:21 AM

She can report on good things, like offensives that clear insurgents out of a particular neighborhood, or progress in getting the gov't to crack down on the Shia militias. But troops handing out candy hardly qualifies as news.

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 09:03 AM

But troops handing out candy hardly qualifies as news.

Just to be accurate, the children were begging for candy but the troops were actually handing out blankets to poor Iraqis during the winter.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 12, 2007 09:40 AM

That would be a little difficult, since "Jamil Gholaiem Hussein" apparently may not exist

Hey Drone,

You can continue to take the word of some guy in pajamas blogging from his momma's basement over the word of a media organization with decades of reliability and experience; just as I'm sure you would maintain that Valerie Plame was not a CIA operative (despite her former employers refusing to let her publish her book). reality is what you make it, I suppose, which explains why all you right wing blowhards continue to believe that this war in Iraq is winnable.

Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2007 10:46 AM

You can continue to take the word of some guy in pajamas blogging from his momma's basement over the word of a media organization with decades of reliability and experience;

Actually, I'm basing it on statements from a representative from the Coalition Force's Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT) that were passed on by the blogger. And you may have missed where I said "may not exist", based on the fact that nothing has yet been confirmed. Obviously you have concluded that if it comes from the AP, it's beyond question.

Oh and does "decades of reliability and experience" include the recent AP reports (out of 61 total attributed to the same "Jamil Gholaiem Hussein") of 6 Iraqis immolated and 4 mosques burned/destroyed with ZERO confirmation coming from any other sources and which now appear to be completely fabricated?

By the way, since you yourself have blog, should you really be criticizing a blogger as a "guy in pajamas blogging from his momma's basement"? Some projection going on there, Brad? Or is this just a case of site traffic envy?

just as I'm sure you would maintain that Valerie Plame was not a CIA operative (despite her former employers refusing to let her publish her book).

I'm assuming she was a "CIA operative" at some point in her career, but since she had been openly commuting to Langley everyday for the past 5+ years at the time Armitage (not Rove) released her name to Novak, she sure as hell wasn't covert. Which I believe is why Fitzgerald was forced to conclude that no laws were broken by the release of her name. Did it ever occur to you that the CIA might not want her publishing her book because she could be releasing info from a time when she was actually covert?

reality is what you make it, I suppose, which explains why all you right wing blowhards continue to believe that this war in Iraq is winnable.

Since I am neither a "progressive" nor a member of the "reality-based" community, I do happen to believe the war in Iraq is winnable with (1) the right tactics (which the Bush administration has so far failed to provide) and (2) sufficient troop strength (also lacking to date).

I know that this opinion is unpopular with all you left-wing limp-dicks who continue to believe that the only solution in Iraq is to throw up our hands, declare that "all is lost" and to run away.. er, redeploy the troops.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 12, 2007 02:37 PM

What tactics and how many troops are needed to win the war? Please provide specifics for the benefit of us limp-dicked cowards.

Posted by: Josh at January 12, 2007 03:28 PM

Obviously you have concluded that if it comes from the AP, it's beyond question.

No, obviously, YOU have concluded that anything that comes from a Winger blogger who has never left his home town is more reliable than a legitimate news agency with imbedded reporters, fact checkers and professional standards. Did it EVER occur to you that Curt at Flopping Aces might have an axe to grind? Also, does it occur to you that this whole Jamil Hussein fixation is a really easy way to ignore the forest for the trees?

By the way, since you yourself have blog, should you really be criticizing a blogger

I don't blog anymore, and I never got much of an audience for it anyway. Guess I wasn't shrill enough. I should have used the word "cunt" and "bitch" in more of my posts.

Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2007 08:10 PM

Some suggested tactics:

1. Disarm or destroy the sectarian militias and their leadership (#1 target should be Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army)

2. More aggressive rules of engagment (i.e. troops don't have to wait until they're under attack before opening fire)

3. After clearing an area of insurgents, hold the ground to prevent them from returning

4. Seal the borders with Iran and Syria; use deadly force to prevent movement of men and materials across the borders

Number of troops needed:

As many as are required in order to implement the above tactics.

None of this is guaranteed to win the war (I did say the war was winnable; it's not a "slam dunk" or a sure thing), but it should at least give us a far better shot than we've had to date.

You're welcome.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 15, 2007 06:47 AM

No, obviously, YOU have concluded that anything that comes from a Winger blogger who has never left his home town is more reliable than a legitimate news agency with imbedded reporters, fact checkers and professional standards.

No, I just refuse to mindlessly accept news from a "professional" organization, especially when questions have been raised about the accuracy of the reporting. Eason Jordan has questioned the existance of "Jamil Hussein" and whether or not the AP's recent 6 Iraqi immolation/4 burned mosque stories are true. Does this make CNN's former Chief News Executive a "winger blogger" that you are going to dismiss?

And don't forget that despite their "fact checkers and professional standards", Reuters managed to pass on doctored photos and photos with erroneous captions during the Israel/Hezbollah conflict last summer. Only after "winger bloggers" called them on it did they retract the photos. And what about "Green Helmet Guy" and the staged photos that were accepted at face value and without question by many of the news agencies.

So spare me your condescending dismissal of bloggers in comparison to "legitimate news agencies".

Did it EVER occur to you that Curt at Flopping Aces might have an axe to grind?

Sure, which is why I said Jamil "may not exist" based on the Flopping Aces story. I'm waiting for more info (preferably from multiple sources, if possible).

Also, does it occur to you that this whole Jamil Hussein fixation is a really easy way to ignore the forest for the trees?

Yes, and here comes the latest spin on the whole Jamil story, that "wingers are trying to say that nothing bad is happening in Iraq just because a few AP stories may not be completely accurate". Did I get that right, Brad?

Allow me to set the record straight: bad things are happening in Iraq and things are going wrong. The Bush administration has (in my opinion) done a poor job managing the occupation phase of the war. Plenty of mistakes have been made. And even if all 61 AP stories attributed to Jamil are found to be false that still doesn't mean that bad things aren't happening. But you do have to wonder if the local stringers being used in Iraq by the major news outlets are giving us an accurate picture of what's going on there.

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 15, 2007 07:28 AM

I don't blog anymore, and I never got much of an audience for it anyway. Guess I wasn't shrill enough.

You don't have to be shrill. Just try not to be lame.

I should have used the word "cunt" and "bitch" in more of my posts.

So is that why you keep commenting here? Is that what keeps bringing you back? What does that say about you?

Posted by: VRWC drone at January 15, 2007 07:31 AM