Take just one minute

Media’s War Lies

Media’s War Lies

By Ralph Peters
New York Post | 4/18/2008

LIKE many Americans, I get angry at biased “reporting” about Iraq and the spin from dishonest pundits. Usually, I get over it quickly, since my expectations of the media are pretty low. But sometimes a Big Lie just won’t let go. And the lefty lie that the Iraqi military is a hopeless failure must be answered.

Yes, we all know that left-wing media outlets, such as the dying New York Times, need Iraq to fail to redeem their credibility. They’ll do all they can to dismiss any sign of progress.

But the perverted gloating over recent Iraqi military operations in Basra combines willful ignorance of military affairs with a shameless manipulation of the facts. Yes, some local Iraqi police and new military recruits ran away. But that was all that the media reported.

Where was the coverage of the 95 percent of the Iraqi security forces who did their duty? Some fought superbly. The Iranian-backed gangs and militias took a beating.

Muqtada al Sadr – not the central government – asked for a cease-fire. The Iraqi military remains in Basra, still pushing (and freeing the occasional kidnapped journalist). The government now has a presence where lawlessness prevailed – and it took control of Basra’s vital port facilities, the country’s economic lifeline.

But all we continue to hear about is the one Iraqi cop or soldier in 20 who ran away.

OK, consider our own military history – which isn’t short of ultimate victories:

* During the American Revolution, George Washington repeatedly had trouble with troops fleeing the battlefield and with desertions. Militias remained unreliable all through the war. Yet, we defeated the British – a global power – in the end.

* In the War of 1812, American troops broke again – and more than once. Yet, at the war’s conclusion, it was redcoats seasoned in the Napoleonic Wars who fled from the US Army’s “Cottonbalers” at New Orleans.

* In the Mexican-American War, Gen. Winfield Scott’s march on Mexico City was the most brilliant campaign ever fought by American troops – yet, earlier in the conflict, an entire troop of US Cavalry (new immigrants) deserted to the Mexican side. That’s why there’s never a J or Juliet troop in a US Cavalry regiment.

* After a few hours of fierce fighting, the Union Army broke at Bull Run, fleeing in panic at the start of our Civil War. Even two years later, when the Army of the Potomac was well on its way to becoming the first great industrial-age force, the XI Corps – more than 10,000 men – disintegrated when surprised by Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville. Guess who won the Civil War, anyway?

* As other writers have noted in regard to Basra, the green US forces in North Africa in WWII fell apart when struck by Rommel’s Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass. At Vossenack Ridge, two years later, US troops cracked under heavy shelling and ran again. Guess who won that war, too?

* At the outset of the Korean War, the US Army’s Task Force Smith collapsed as it was overwhelmed by North Koreans. But we came back with a vengeance. Should we have just quit?

And should we demand more of the Iraqis, who have so many internal obstacles to overcome, than we ourselves could deliver in the past?

Few battles have perfect outcomes. No wars do. Not all soldiers will measure up. And no human endeavor is more complex than warfare.

Soldiers break and run in three basic circumstances: when they’re new and are asked to do too much too soon; when they’re surprised; or when they’re ground down to the breaking point by overwhelming odds.

Show me one country whose troops have never fled a battlefield – I can’t find any.

In the past, when we still honored military service, even the literary set understood that wars are fought by fallible human beings. Stephen Crane’s American classic, “The Red Badge of Courage,” is about a young soldier who runs away in terror from his first taste of combat – yet returns to fight bravely later on.

The Iraqi military, which now has 190,000 troops in uniform, is getting along pretty well by historical standards. These troops are taking responsibility for their own country, allowing us to do less and less of the fighting and dying. Yes, they’ll need our help for a while yet – but we needed the “technologically superior” French to help us get to Yorktown.

Meanwhile, why don’t the noisiest critics of the situation in Iraq, from the Times’ silly Frank Rich to Sen. Barack Obama, go to Iraq to see things for themselves?

Are they afraid?

If so, they really shouldn’t question the courage of others or mock their sacrifices.

I’ve always admitted that Iraq could fail. Despite real, measurable progress, that remains the case. I only wish that those on the left would have the integrity to acknowledge that Iraq also has a chance to succeed.


Barack Fuzzies Up On Iran

Barack Fuzzies Up On Iran

Lee Cary

As it pertains to his position on Iran, will the real Barack Obama please stand up!
Thanks to Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light , and to Clarice Freeman, for American Thinker readers, for bringing to our attention a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran,” written by David Mendell, September 24, 2004, now available for a small fee through the Tribune’s archives.
The original article quoted a politician who had with a worldview back then that is considerably at odds with the moveon.org folks who endorse him now.
What he called for in September 2004 is exactly what happened.
“Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions.” 
Three-and-a-half years later, on Monday, March 2, 2008, the U.N. passed yet another resolution, their third, imposing economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop enriching uranium.  
Back in 2004, Obama told the Tribune,
“But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
He was correct, then.  But now, he’s a different Obama. In his campaign document concerning U.S. policy toward Iran, his position on Iran has changed. He acknowledges the threat Iran poses, but then accuses the Bush administration of issuing “veiled threats.”  Back in 2004, he told the Tribune,
“[Concerning a response to Iran’s effort to gain nuclear capabilities] missile strikes might be a viable option.”
That’s not a threat?
Today, his solution is “new and robust American leadership” (beware of the word “robust” because it isn’t) that executes “tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure.” (The intensifier “real” really carries no real, robust meaning.) His campaign document reads:
It’s time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it’s time to deliver a direct message to Tehran…You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations.  Or you will face further isolation including much tighter sanction.”
That’s not a threat – albeit hollow to the Mullahs?
Obama argues that “we haven’t even tried direct diplomacy.”  This aligns with his oft repeated promise that he would talk directly to our enemies.  We’ve seen this foreign policy practiced before in the face of tyranny.  And, we know the consequences.
“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”  Neville Chamberlain
Winston Churchill’s take on Chamberlain works for Obama.
“Neville Chamberlain looked at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe.”

Obama: Arab-American Families Being Rounded Up?

Obama: Arab-American Families Being Rounded Up?

By Lance Fairchok

“If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work.”
Senator Barack Obama
In a televised twelve-second campaign spot aired in Texas, Senator Obama gives a stirring speech to a standing ovation. It is the predictable litany of American faults he will miraculously correct: literacy, expensive prescription drugs and insufficient civil liberties. However, he seems particularly concerned for Arab-Americans. “If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties.”

This was an astonishing statement, an infuriating statement and a statement that speaks volumes to Obama’s ideology.

Arab-American families being rounded up would not only threaten all our civil liberties, it would raise such a universal outcry, it could not long endure. Even the suggestion it could occur is a profound insult to our nation and our citizenry. It is an image of the gulag, the death camp, the dictatorship, and so inappropriate in any discussion about America, it is beneath our contempt.

Perhaps the Senator is carried away by his remarkable political ascendancy and so emboldened by the lack of critical comment in the press, he believes he can say anything. Perhaps he believes he has so mesmerized us with his oratory that we will not catch the inference of his words. Perhaps he really believes that we are that kind of country, that our people do not cherish civil liberty sufficiently to defend it for all citizens.

This despicable image of innocent families imprisoned and the ethnic cleansing it suggests is a theme the radical left nurtures. It is by design intended to portray an unjust and intolerant people, it was no error, no misstatement. It elicits moral outrage with false assumptions, endlessly repeating those assumptions until believed. It is behind the exaggeration of everything the U.S. does in the war on terror or against Islamic extremism. It is behind the hysteria over the Patriot Act.

As divorced from truth as it is, it is found everywhere in the propaganda of the left, from the Bush-Hitler signs, to the fabrications of American military wrongdoing in the press, to the invented Islamophobia in our populace. It is the motivation behind Michael Moore, Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and George Soros. It is unfortunately the message the media aids and abets.

This moral contrariness gives us American “progressives” embracing dictators and terrorists such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Iran’s Ahmedinejhad and Syria’s Bashar al Assad. It finds equivalence between defending America and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorism. It believes malevolent evil can actually be stopped with dialogue and compromise. It gravitates to a miserable “better red than dead” nihilism that allows no pride or faith in America. It excuses our enemies and indicts everything American. It is the impenitent legacy of the Carter and Clinton administrations. It is illogical and irrational and a road to failure and catastrophe.
“I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work.” Yet, he also says that our country does not work, that we need change. Even as he wraps this contradiction in biblical allusion and positive words like “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In” his underlying belief system surfaces in clues overlooked by his handlers.

The bleak fantasy of Arab-American families interred for being Arabs and, of course, for being Muslim is very plausible to the radicals that help write his speeches. Senator Obama holds a wretched America in his heart, a country he has no pride in nor wishes to preserve. If his vision starts from failure, where will it end? There is no truth in his words, just as there is no substance. One may speak well, but still speak lies. An Obama presidency would be a disaster.

The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.
  – Cicero

Attacks against our troops by American governmental bodies are continuing

It is with a heavy heart that we are reporting to you that the attacks against our troops by American governmental bodies are continuing.

 Copy and paste links

The Mayor of Toldeo, Ohio has told the Marines to get out of his town:

In Arcata, California City Council member Dave Meserve is leading an effort against military recruiters:

This is why Move America Forward has chosen to make a stand in Berkeley, CA this Tuesday, February 12th to stand our ground and let it be known that we aren’t willing to give up ANY American cities to those who would dishonor and disrespect our military. 

And we’re going to let all these other towns across America know what is coming to them if they even THINK of trying to go down the Berkeley route.

FINALLY – and perhaps most importantly – you simply MUST watch this video of the comments made by the Code Pink protestors in Berkeley, CA to understand what we’re up against this Tuesday when we conduct our pro-troop demonstration and protest of the Berkeley City Council.


Join us for part or all of the day this Tuesday, February 12th when Move America Forward conducts an all-day pro-troop demonstration (and protest against the Berkeley City Council) at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Berkeley, California.

We need you to come join us.  Complete details of when and where are located at our website:  http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org

Pelosi calls Iraq a ‘failure’

Welcome to George Soros’s America