SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (56299)3/20/2007 6:29:23 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Ah, the old but often used MSM trick of making headline "newz" out of fraudulent polls as part of their zealous attempt to mislead Americans about what's really happening in Iraq.

Then there's reality. You know the one the left wing MSM refuses to report to Americans.

****

Iraqis ask: Civil war, what civil war?

Call it dueling polls.

First, the USA Today/Gallup poll found 76% of Americans believe there is a civil war in Iraq.

Next, an Opinion Research Business poll found that 61% of Iraqis say there is NO CIVIL WAR.

But what do those Iraqis know? They only live there, while Americans watch this stuff on TV.

Well, not actually watch this stuff. Jon Stewart and Jay Leno make jokes about it all the time so it must be true.

Lifting from Marie Colvin’s report in the Sunday Times of London:
    49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-
Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only
26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era
, while 16%
said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the
rest did not know or refused to answer.
Well, so much for Saddam's popularity. Didn’t he get 100% of the vote in 2002?

But this was the big news:
    Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were
caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along
religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in
a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.
Not even a majority of the Sunnis say it is a civil war.
I guess the American leftist media forgot to tell the Iraqis that Iraq is having a civil war.

Either that or Iraqis are all watching Fox.

blogs.dailymail.com



To: tejek who wrote (56299)3/21/2007 1:23:30 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
THE IRAQ SURGE: WHY IT'S WORKING ...

By GORDON CUCULLU
NEW YORK POST
Opinion
March 20, 2007

"I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."

What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."

More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."

In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."

A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it's back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)

Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad's Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic."

"We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold."

Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. "We initiated Operation Safe Markets," Petraeus said, "and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets." Car bombings have dropped precipitately - the limited access thwarts them.

As a result, "The marketplaces, including the book market that was targeted for an especially vicious attack, are rebuilding and doing great business. It is helping the local economy enormously to have this kind of protection in place." With jobs plentiful and demand growing, the appeal of militia armies declines proportionally.

Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people - "acting like a politician," Petraeus said, without malice. "He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots."

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."

Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."

Virtually everyone who knows him says that David Petraeus is one of the brightest, most capable officers in today's Army. "He is the perfect person for the job," retired Major Gen. Paul Vallely noted.

Early signs are positive; early indicators say that we're winning. As Petraeus cautiously concluded, "We'll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer." That's his job. Our job? We need to give him the time and space needed to win this war.

Gordon Cucullu is a retired U.S. Army officer and a member of Benador Associates. His book on Guantanamo is due out this fall.

nypost.com
_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm



To: tejek who wrote (56299)3/21/2007 1:31:07 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
THE IRAQ SURGE: ... & WHY SUCCESS UPSETS DEMS

By RICH LOWRY
NEW YORK POST
Opinion
March 20, 2007

WHEN President Bush announced a surge of troops into Baghdad in January, Democrats pounded him for the folly of putting U.S. troops in the "middle of a civil war." Two months later, the question is, What happens to a civil war if only one side shows up to fight it?

The Shia militias that had become the main driver of violence in Baghdad are ducking and covering. Militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, perhaps in Iran. His fighters aren't resisting U.S. troops who have begun conducting patrols in his stronghold of Sadr City. According to Gen. Dave Petraeus, 700 members of Sadr's Mahdi Army have been detained in recent months.

This hardly means that peace and harmony reign in Baghdad, but it has reduced the killing significantly. If at the beginning of the year anyone had predicted such progress from the addition of just two U.S. combat brigades in Bagdad (six brigades eventually will be part of the surge), he would have been derided as a delusional optimist.

This progress might be transitory, but it illustrates the falsity of a key assumption of Democrats. They prefer to talk of Iraq in terms of a civil war because it suggests that nothing can be done about the violence, that it is running its own hermetic course. Well, it clearly isn't. What the U.S. does matters. If we hadn't surged, Baghdad already might have descended into the genocidal fury toward which it was headed earlier in the year.

The other side of the Iraqi civil war - the car-bombing Sunni terrorists - hasn't stood down, of course. But these are the people that Democrats express a notional interest in fighting. In a January letter to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "counterterror" should be one of the "principal" missions of U.S. troops. Sen. Carl Levin wants to restrict U.S. troops to "an anti-terrorist mission to go after al Qaeda in Iraq."

According to a U.S. intelligence report quoted by The New York Times, captured materials from al Qaeda in Iraq say that the group sees "the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations." So the Democrats profess to want to fight terrorists in Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq is making Baghdad its focus. It would stand to reason, then, that the Democrats wouldn't want to undermine our effort to control Baghdad. Our counterinsurgency mission there is a counterterrorism mission. It aims to squeeze out terrorists, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Nonetheless, Democrats in the House and Senate are attempting to force our troops from Baghdad, exactly as al Qaeda in Iraq wants. There is an essential symmetry to the goals of Sunni militants and Democrats here at home with regard to the disposition of our forces - the fewer, the farther away from Baghdad, the better (needless to say, for vastly different reasons).
In reporting on al Qaeda in Iraq's strategy, The New York Times notes, "American forces, instead of withdrawing from the capital as the Sunni insurgents had hoped, prepared plans to reinforce their troops there." Over the strenuous objections of Democrats.

Each side of the domestic debate concerning the Iraq War tends to get stuck in its own self-reinforcing narratives. For Bush and supporters of the war, it was a narrative of success. Negative developments were chalked up as the inevitable difficulties of any war, amplified by the liberal media. Bush broke out of that narrative to order the change of strategy that is the surge.

For Democrats, it is the narrative of defeat.
Even as the civil war has de-escalated somewhat in Iraq -weakening the force of the Democrats' favorite "middle of a civil war" sound bite - and even as the surge has elevated the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq - the enemy that Democrats say they want to defeat - Democratic opposition to the surge has only intensified. Will they oppose it even more if it continues to work?

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

nypost.com
why_success_upsets_dems_opedcolumnists_rich_lowry.htm



To: tejek who wrote (56299)3/21/2007 4:07:31 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
They Don't Impress 'Em Much

Power Line

How many times have you heard that President Bush's approval ratings are low? Guess what: the Democratic Congress's approval rating is lower.

For some reason, this hasn't been getting much press.
But the low esteem in which voters held Congress prior to November's election barely changed after the Democrats took power in January. Today, Gallup notes that the modest bounce Congress experienced in January and February is now gone:

<<< The modest uptick in approval of the job being done by Congress has dissipated for the most part after only two months.

According to Gallup's monthly update on job approval of Congress -- in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll -- 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove. >>>

This graphic shows Gallup's trend pretty clearly:



Gallup is not alone. Check out all of the polls, collected at Real Clear Politics. The polls consistently show that Congress never got more than a slight bounce when it changed hands in January, and its ratings now are pretty much where they were when the Republicans were in control before the election.

I attribute this to the fact that the Democrats have no positive agenda. They patently have no interest in doing the people's business, and, similarly, show no interest in appealing to any element of the electorate other than the hard-core haters who form their base.

If they keep this up, a 28% approval rating will be looking good by this time next year.

To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com

galluppoll.com

realclearpolitics.com



To: tejek who wrote (56299)3/29/2007 4:51:58 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 90947
 
Culture of Corruption: Dianne Feinstein Edition?

The Jawa Report

HELLO, MSM? Echooooo... [que crickets chirping]

According to MetroActive, Dianne Feinstein resigned quietly (where was the MSM?) in January from a Military Construction Appropriations committee over a conflict of interest involving her husband, tens of millions of dollars in defense and construction contracts, etc.

MetroActive speculates that the resignation was due to the impending release of a scathing expose (funded by The Nation) that threatened to blow the lid off the air-tight kettledrum of ethical problems:


<<< SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005? >>>

WHERE IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS TO CONDEMN AND ASK FOR HER RESIGNATION? WHERE IS NANCY PELOSI? WHERE IS HARRY REID? WHERE IS CHUCK SCHUMER?

More importantly, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE REPUBLICANS?

This is genuine news. Political corruption on a scale as big as Duke Cunningham, and the mainstream press is worried about 8 US attorneys losing their jobs in a completely legal hard-ball political axing-session.

The Culture of Corruption has 'returned' - bigger and better than ever before!

mypetjawa.mu.nu

metroactive.com

mypetjawa.mu.nu