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

Earmarking Murtha

Earmarking Murtha

Clarice Feldman
When he’s not slandering the troops or posing with Code Pink love bombers, Murtha is swiping funds from the federal treasury for his friends and family. Here’s the latest on the mysterious million dollar earmark for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure.      

No Surrender

No Surrender
By Joseph Puder
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 21, 2007

The Republican Jewish Coalition Leadership Conference attendees meeting in Washington on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, received U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) with tumultuous applause and a standing ovation.  The 160 Republican Jewish leaders who assembled at the Washington DC Chamber of Commerce building, a block away from the White House, were visibly moved by Senator Lieberman’s principled stand on the Iraq war and national security, and delighted in his victory last November over Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman who was supported by the Democratic party, and his Democratic colleague from Connecticut, Senator Christopher Dodd.

Senator Lieberman expressed his gratitude to many in the audience for having supported his 2006 race for re-election.  Injecting dry humor, he said, “I know there are some who are probably wondering what a nice independent Democrat from Connecticut is doing at a Republican event like this?  Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year… And as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.”

Assuming a more serious demeanor and quoting President Ronald Reagan, Lieberman’s message to the audience was “Now is the time for choosing.”  He continued: “If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.”  “But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought and died for will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.”  He added, “That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall.  It is a choice not just about our foreign policy, our national security and our interests in the Middle East, it is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for.  It is about our very soul as a nation.  It is about who we are, and who we want to be.”

Interrupted by repeated applause, Senator Lieberman went on say that the Iraq war has become a “defining issue” for both Congress and the presidency” and that the consequences of the decisions made in the next few months will have an impact “far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.”  He asserted that part of the disagreement we face over Iraq is a genuine difference of opinion.  Lieberman provided the prevailing views on Iraq and the threat of Islamic extremists:  “There are those who believe as I do, that the struggle against Islamic extremism is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus – our commander in Iraq – recently said, ‘Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamic extremism.’”  Others (mostly Congressional Democrats, J.P.), Lieberman said, believe that the threat of Islamic extremism is “overstated” and that Iraq is simply a distraction from the “real” war on terror, and that the war in Iraq is either lost or not worth fighting to win.

“It is my deeply held conviction,” Lieberman said, “that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong – and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the U.S., for Iraq, and the entire Middle East, including Israel, and our moderate Arab allies.”  An American defeat in Iraq Lieberman said, would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran, two of the bitterest enemies the free world is facing.  It would vindicate our enemies’ perception of America as “weak” and as easily driven by the threat of terrorism.  Moreover, it would confirm the fears of our friends – not only in Iraq, but also throughout the world – “that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.”

Lieberman admonished the politics of partisanship, calling on the Democrats to end their spiteful attitude towards President Bush.  “For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it.  If the war in Iraq is going badly, that is bad for him and good for Democrats.  It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that.”

Lieberman then turned to the Republicans saying that the unpopularity of the Iraq war has begun “to shake their will.”  He criticized Congressional Republicans for thinking that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because “the American people tell pollsters they want out.”  Lieberman added, “If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.” 

Citing the transformation of the Anbar Province in Iraq, deemed by the Washington Post as “lost” five months ago, Lieberman, who recently returned from Iraq and visited Anbar, said, “Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and yes-the New York Times reports that we have turned the corner there.”

Concluding his address, Lieberman stated, “My friends, now is not the time for despair.  Now is the time for resolve.  Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion.  Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle America’s voters have always honored.  I ask you to plead with every member of Congress – Do not surrender to hopelessness, do not succumb to defeat, do not give in to fear, rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America.”

Scott M. Feigelstein, Director of the Pennsylvania/NJ chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition had this to say about Lieberman speech, “I have known Joe Lieberman for a long time and his appearance and remarks were historical, statesmanlike, highly principled and totally in character with who he is as a person and a leader.  Senator Lieberman, like President Bush, recognizes the serious threat facing our nation and the world emanating from radical Islamist forces.  Making tough policy decisions without regard to political polls is a hallmark of leadership and the Senator is one of the few members of his party demonstrating such quality.  It was an honor to see and hear his remarks.”

Philadelphian Lance Silver, founder of the Forum for Middle Eastern Understanding (FFMU) and Board member of the Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI) who also attended the conference added, “It is obvious that the Senator knows the difference between right and wrong in today’s world, and to that I can only say Amen.”

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Protests target “surrender monkeys” Pelosi and Reid

Move America Forward

Protests target “surrender monkeys” Pelosi and


By Catherine Moy

Friday, May 18, 2007

Surrender MonkeyProtestors and “surrender monkeys” marched on the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday opposing the Democrats retreat-and-defeat policies in the war against Muslim Jihadists in Iraq and around the world.

The “surrender monkeys” – played by two chimpanzees in San Francisco – wore the uniform of the original surrender monkeys from France: a beret and a waving white flag.

Move America Forward (MAF), the country’s largest pro-troop group, sponsored the “Surrender is Not an Option” protests in three cities: San Francisco, Las Vegas and Carson City, Nev. The protesters included Iraqi veterans, Vietnam veterans, Gold Star parents, Blue Star parents, American patriots and special guests: two chimpanzees and one French monkey dressed as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

Following the protest, 10 people were allowed inside Pelosi’s San Francisco office to discuss the issues with a staff person. The media were prohibited from witnessing the meeting; cameras and recording devices were banned, with no explanation. Guards kept an eye on the rally and strictly controlled entry into Pelosi’s office.

Sen. Reid’s office did not take kindly to the 100-plus protestors at his Carson City office. A handful of people, including a war veteran carrying a flag, went to the office and asked a Reid worker if they could make a formal complaint to the Democratic Senator. The group, led by Eric Odom of www.opposereid.com, asked her if she agreed with Reid. The woman slammed the door in their faces. (Video is at www.MoveAmericaForward.org).

Neither Reid nor his office could be reached for comment on the incident.

MAF chairman Melanie Morgan spoke at the San Francisco event, which drew more than 70 people. Morgan, who is also cohost of the popular Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan show on San Francisco’s KSFO, explained the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” were meant to mock the cut-and-run politicians in Congress.

“Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick Harry Reid personify the retreat-defeat-surrender mentality that is typical of what the Democrat party stands for today, “Morgan said in an earlier interview. “I might lump in Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska in that column.ÊNo matter what party,ÊAmericans do not stand for defeat.”

The chimpanzees in San Francisco were treated with great care at the rally. Their handlers ensured they were safe and content. Jake, one of the chimpanzees, carried a flag that said, “Surrender is not an option.”

The temperature in Las Vegas reached 97 degrees, which drew a complaint to the Humane Society of America, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

“It’s a shame that Move America Forward is exploiting animals to score political points,” Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement to the Sun. “Bringing monkeys into a crowded situation – especially in 97 degree heat – is potentially dangerous for the animals as well as the public.”

It is unclear who complained about Hobo the “surrender monkey’s” performance, which included him energetically riding a scooter. Hobo’s handler ensured that the French monkey was hydrated and comfortable.

MAF spokespeople said Hobo was safe and appeared to enjoy his shtick.

“We treated the animals with love, compassion and respect,” said Joe Wierzbicki, MAF spokesman who was at the Las Vegas rally.

“What’s truly inhumane is how Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid are cutting and running on our troops, attempting to strip them of funding for training, ammunition and food in the middle of battle,” Morgan said.

The “surrender monkeys” brought a bit of comedic relief to the protestors, many of whom have either served in the Iraq war or have loved ones deployed.

Joseph Williams, a Vacaville resident whose son was killed in the early days of the Iraq war, drove to San Francisco so Pelosi would know that most Gold Star parents want the United States to win the war Ð not leave with our tails between our legs.

“I’m tired of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys led by the Commander-in-Cheese Pelosi,” said Williams, a Vietnam veteran.

Joe Eckstein, a San Francisco resident, showed up “because I love my country.”

Eckstein believes Pelosi is a danger to our country by doing such things as taking trips to Syria while thumbing her nose at President Bush and the State Department.

“I’ve known she was dangerous since the time I saw her march in a parade with child molesters, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association),” Eckstein said. “We call her NAMBLA Nancy.”

Christine Sargent took time off work to attend the San Francisco protest.

“I’m here for the troops,” Sargent said. “My son is in the Navy. . . Nancy Pelosi is very self-absorbed. How she got that position Ð God only knows.”

Fairfield resident Rod Ferroggiaro took the ferry to San Francisco to participate. He served three tours in Vietnam and he remembers the horrible treatment he and his fellow veterans received upon returning to the States. He likened it to Reid’s disrespectful actions and words.

“I know what it felt like,” Ferroggiaro said. “The civilian population had a hard time looking us in the eyes. Commanders told us not to wear our uniforms in public.

“I came here because it was the right thing to do.”

Neither Pelosi’s nor Reid’s leadership has led to a successful timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And their behavior is apparently having an effect on public opinion. Congress now has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

MAF’s Morgan swears she won’t stop her efforts until the war is won.

“We can, and will, honor our troops by blowing some air into their sails as they fight a dirty and dangerous war,” Morgan said. “They are trying to cut the budget that funds our soldiers in harm’s way. That’s unacceptable. Senator Reid told the world ‘we are losing in Iraq.’ I DARE him to say that to a fighting man or woman in theatre. It’s disgusting.”