A moment of silence? At least from Tehran that is how it would appear; in NY however, the Mullahs Supreme Allegiance Branch West, otherwise known as the NY Times Editorial Board is in its usual frothing at the mouth form.

Tehran is quiet from a reporting point of view, which is unusual for a government controlled mouthpiece often overflowing with the propaganda rhetoric of the weeks Friday Prayer Leader. We’ll have to wait and see what next Friday brings to judge whether this lack will become the standard; perhaps their own words are coming back to bite them as they work to hide their faces of evil.

But no sooner does someone finish writing a paragraph and the floodgates are loosed; from Tehran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei led the congregation with:

"Alert and wise Iranian nation, relying on strong faith and resistance, made US project of weakening Islamic Revolution face defeat. The Iranian nation would continue paving the same proud and glorious path, and a time will come when no power would dare to threaten this nation, even in his mind."

The religio-politico leader also defined US plans following 9/11 by adding:

"The Americans had a multi-dimensional project, aimed at shaping up a pro-Zionist Middle East, but faced defeat at all layers of that project."

Sometimes too much love can be harmful, but if you so choose visit the Motormouth Mullah for more of his positive message.

Mullahs West for its part continued the assault to strengthen the imagined belief that President Bush is the real enemy in this war and offered the fruits of wisdom with its summation of the week:

“This was the week in which Americans hoped they would get straight talk and clear thinking on Iraq. What they got was two exhausting days of Congressional testimony by the American military commander, hours of news conferences and interviews, clouds of cut-to-order statistics and a speech from the Oval Office — and none of it either straight or clear.”

It is a shame that in its role as the arbiter of truth the toilet paper believes “Americans” are so easily exhausted by an entire two days of information. Perhaps, as is obvious it is The behind the Times that has issues with the clarity and direction it expected from the testimony and “hours of news conferences and interviews.” When the only thing that would please Mullahs West is what they want to hear, anything short of that is just more smoke, mirrors and clouds.

Beyond the repetition complaining about repetition and various assertive, yet naïve strategies the board did at the least not bash General Petraeus. This was likely due to the lack of this necessity with the discounted full page ad given to the MoveOn group.

Beyond the redun, redundant, redundant and repetitive moaning and alternate propaganda with “cherry picked” remarks and misinformation, Mullahs West did offer up a very revealing sentence that suggests how wrong they really are. In hoping “Mr. Bush would drop the meaningless talk of victory” and the “fiction that the war keeps” Americans safe from terrorism; they offered “credit” to the general for not adopting “that bit of propaganda.”

So used to supporting those in the General Officers club that agree with their perspective, that when a general rightly chooses not to play a role in the larger political snafu; a role mind you that is not the generals to play, that they give him “credit” for doing something he shouldn’t be doing anyway.

President Bush spoke for the eighth time on the subject of Iraq this evening; the consensus to most talking heads was it is not much in the neighborhood of new material. A reason for this lack in new material can be attributed to the opposition’s repetition of the past four years; the president is still speaking to the same arguments. This is not to say it is the fault of the Democrats that the president is repetitive, but more in line with yelling in a canyon and hearing an echo in response. Would it be nice if he were to take a new tack? Yes, it would, but it would also be nice if the Democrats tried a new refrain as well.

Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed responded to the president with the same tried and still not true material. A piece of which is “ending this war.” This has basically been the crux to the debate; Democrats and their supporters see this as a “war” and the president and his supporters in this vein see this more as a battle in a “war.” These are two very diametrically opposed views and part of that, which has made the debate all the more difficult to move forward in a way that might reach consensus.

Jack Reed referred to the issue in Iraq as a civil war, which is nothing new; so far so good. Setting aside the implausibility inherent in succeeding at what is being attempted with the numbers employed now, but with fewer troops and/or with new geographical post, we can end “this war.” Senator Reed is not wrong if this is a singular and unique war with no relatives in sight. Where Senator Reed and the Democrats fail is if this is as the president has continuously stated; a front in a greater war, this to the Democrats is the great gamble and one with which they have bet our future on.

In a perfect world with pieces that fit like a jigsaw puzzle, the Democrats might have a chance at completing the image of the cute puppy on the box cover. In another perfect world, as horrifying and pitiful as it would be, were the president wrong, amends could be made; not perfectly mind you with all forgiven, but made nonetheless; take it or leave it. Pride or martyrdom in death, like that sought by our enemy is mistaken but to the greater thinking world, admitting error is possible and more likely by no other nation than the United States; we’re great at proselytizing (think Democrats).

The catch is the more likely scenario. The United States and its allies disengage from the battle in the greater war; redeploy, draw down, withdraw and bring an end to the “war” only to find that we have given massive and unimaginable ground reminiscent of a Hamburger Hill magnified, but the planet is the hill. We then spend decades making up for the loss of momentum that we had within our grasp, yet threw away in our haste to end the “war.”

On September 11, 2006 I visited the Arizona 9/11 Memorial at its opening. Following the fanfare led by Governor Janet Napolitano at its unveiling I visited for a closer inspection to read the panels.

Unfortunately I had no camera in hand; I certainly did not expect to have the reaction that I did; seeing it was a memorial to those lost on that sorrowful day. Suffice it to say, I brought my camera the next day and posted my reaction in my Arizona's Offensively Politically Correct 9/11 Memorial post.

Yesterday’s Arizona Republic called the memorial “still a lightning rod,” and covered the slow effort to edit this appalling “piece” of Leftist trash that rather than honor those on that day, tries to perform an educational experiment representing various views in negative PC-speak.

A “lightening rod” could have been avoided had the commission responsible for the debacle kept to the day and the sorrow; a memorial as it should be to the victims of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Some plates included on the memorial that miss the 9/11 target, but not the Leftist one:

"Fear of Foreigners" Balbir Singh Sodhi, A Sike, murdered in Mesa"

"Foreign-Born Americans Afraid"

"Must Bomb Back"

"You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles"

"1st US soldier killed by enemy fire in Afghanistan"

"Middle East violence motivates attacks in US"

"Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians'

"Avtar Singh Cheira, a Sikh, shot in Phoenix"

"Terrorist organization leader addresses American people"

“Remove two inscriptions, including an inaccurate reference to an "erroneous" U.S. air strike that killed civilians in Afghanistan.

Add two explanatory panels near the front of the memorial that emphasize the historical events of 9/11 and help visitors interpret the memorial.

Etch as many as seven new inscriptions into the memorial, including "Let's roll" and "God bless America."”

Remove an “inaccurate” panel regarding an “erroneous” U.S. air strike? Inaccuracy misses the point; does anyone recall that “erroneous” U.S. air strike on the 11^th of September 2001? Remember the images above?

Adding “Let’s roll” and “God bless America” are certainly more appropriate as they were spoken that day, but they still appear to be missing the point. Sure, you can include the words of those that took the bull by the horns and dealt with a life threatening moment.

According to the paper, this “revision” is a “delicate balance;” because:

“the public remained divided. Supporters rallied to the memorial's defense at a series of public hearings, saying the memorial reflects the nation's conflicted psyche in the days surrounding the terrorist attacks.”

May I suggest at this time that we approach this “delicate balance,” with the raising of the “Nation’s Conflicted Psyche 9/11 Memorial,” in Wesley Bolin Park in Phoenix Arizona.

In an era when so much is politicized that we keep the political garbage out of a local tombstone memorializing families’ losses? Memorializing Americans and others that walked into work one morning just like any other day prior, but did now walk out.

A memorial such as this that claims to be a memorial to “the family, friends and fellow citizens we lost on September 11,” because they “should never be forgotten.” One way to avoid forgetting the names of those taken, would be to include their names in a “memorial” to them, rather than a plaque listing the members of the “Governors September 11^th Memorial Commission;” especially in a memorial so unmemorable.

From the Editors at National Review Online comes this closer, which says it all:

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday dismissed General Petraeus as not an “independent evaluator” of the Iraq war. Everything we’ve heard this year indicates that Petraeus is in fact a cautious and factual evaluator of the surge, but in a sense Feinstein is right — Petraeus is vested in the war, sees it as an important national project, and wants to win. Would that Democrats showed a similar bias.”

There happens to be a lot of great points in this editorial that make it very worthwhile reading as well as more commentary from: Byron York, Michael O’Hanlon, Michael Yon, John Boehner, Mark Hemingway, Fred Kagan, Donald Kagan, W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Michael Barone, William Hawkins, Mark Steyn and James S. Robbins.

So, with the new majority in Washington are we truly to believe that Bush is the whole problem?

On another facet of the war on terror Newt Gingrich visited Fox and Friends this morning, where in part he suggested the U.S. concentrate/debate on the big picture in the war on terror and not just focus on Iraq. This is wise advice as so many speak to the Iraq theater just going away if we withdraw/redeploy; an end to this war.

Iran for some time now has been shelling in the Kurdish north of Iraq; an Iranian delegation at a diplomatic conference in Baghdad at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry warned in diplomatese:

“if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks, the Iranian authorities would respond militarily.”

A veiled suggestion to enter Iraq militarily is the first straight forward remark from Iran even though its words reveal its plans daily.

According to the delegation the U.S. has a “double-standard” as:

‘”Supporting military and political actions by terrorist elements in Iraq against neighboring countries is considered dangerous behavior that we cannot tolerate, and a major factor in the chaotic security situation and instability in the region.”’

This double-standard unfortunately does not reach the heights of the exponentially rising “double-standards” of Iran, but the U.S. has to start somewhere, no?

The conference, which was organized by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry and led by Hoshyar Zebari was attended by the U.S. and other “concerned” neighbors in the region.

We’ve all heard of the calls from many on the Left to bring regional players together in a diplomatic forum (this conference; an example of what they do not see) to bring peace and calm to Iraq. At the conference, Hoshyar Zebari proposed:

“creating a “secretariat” to keep track of the Iraq issues being considered at the meetings.

When it became apparent that the United States and Britain backed Mr. Zebari’s proposal, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others quickly took the floor to shoot the proposal down. The conference ended with the issue unresolved.”

In an opinion/essay follow up to Saturday’s post “UN Summit: Boycott Israel” posted by Basti comes this from Anne Bayefsky at NRO, “Durban II; the coming “anti-racist” spectacle.”

“Last Friday in Geneva, the U.N. launched a two-year plan which will culminate in a full-throated anti-American and anti-Israel world conference on racism in 2009. Modeled on the notorious 2001 Durban “anti-racism” conference, Durban II similarly promises to attract terrorist sympathizers and anti-Semites from around the globe. The spectacle of last week’s planning session might be described as the theater of the absurd, except that the check handed to the American taxpayer for 22 percent of the costs was very real.”

The UN has many different offices that work toward “peace” on earth, one of which is the “powerful” Security Council, however, with all the interest groups that help direct government on the planet the Security Council doesn’t hold the propaganda sway that others do.

Consider the “Human Rights Council,” the lead instigator in the revisiting Durban I and serving as the preparatory committee (PredCom) for Durban II:

“At its third session, the Human Rights Council in its resolution 3/2 decided that the Human Rights Council will act as the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference which shall be open to the participation of all Member States of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies and also to the participation of observers in accordance with the established practice of the General Assembly. It further decided that at its organizational sessions the Preparatory Committee shall elect, on the basis of equitable geographic representation, a bureau for the Preparatory Committee and that, at the same session, the Preparatory Committee shall decided on all the relevant modalities for the Conference in accordance with established practice of the General Assembly, including deciding on the objectives of the Review Conference, the level at which the Review Conference shall be convened, regional preparatory initiatives, date and venue.”

According to Bayefsky:

“On the first day of the session the PrepCom elected Libya as its chair, Cuba as rapporteur, and Iran as a member of its executive — to plan a conference about human rights.”

The Organization of the Islamic Conference or OIC (for entertainment purposes glance at some of the OIC news on its homepage) holds the majority of seats on the African and Asian regional groups, so it effectively is in charge in the quest to guide the world in recognizing and doing something about human rights.

Some of the PrepCom’s issues it would like to and very likely will include are:

• adopting objectives far beyond the original idea of a “Durban review conference”;
• creating another U.N. committee to prepare for Durban II;
• issuing special participation invitations only to the U.N. investigators (rapporteurs) on racism and Islamophobia, and freedom of religion;
• adopting new rules of procedure especially designed for the Conference;
• introducing vetting for a pre-conference questionnaire that might have asked potentially intrusive questions of states about actual protection from discrimination;
• paying for the Durban II preparations from the U.N.’s regular budget (that is the West); and
• allowing every NGO that participated in Durban I to participate in Durban II unless objections were made in just 14 days.

These are pretty cute when you take a look at them and fall pretty much in line with any UN led initiative including the usual lack of accountability that defines the “austere” body. Rather than pacify, members of this committee are those that enflamed Islamic sensibilities during the “InkQuisition.”

It’s odd that someone in the public eye like a politician would risk their career and/or what they have accomplished for some fun. The recent media revelation of an Idaho senator’s attempt at participating in what is called “anonymous sex,” is just such a case.

Senator Craig is not the first, nor will he be the last, but do you ever notice how much media play a Conservative politician rates when they have fallen from grace? This, we are told is attributed to the usual Conservative stance of “family values,” and the juxtaposition of this moral ethic and “anonymous sex.”

This is, as many have said already a double standard between what constitutes a Conservative scandal and a Liberal scandal. As only one example, Former President Bill Clinton participated in lewd conduct with an intern in the Oval Office of all places and lied about it under oath before a grand jury, yet he escaped impeachment and to this day is the darling of the Left.

Recently Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been caught in a bit of a mess with donations from questionable sources, the Paw Family and Norma Hsu. It is by no means expected that Ms. Clinton should know about every donor on her list, although Hsu is one of the few, and the proud mendacious “Hillraisers,” so it shouldn’t in that instance be too much of a stretch to have the campaign get a clue about it.

What should be of concern is of the Democrat scandals that lose the front page quickly one that should be back up there loud and clear is the Clinton political machines other questionable campaign financing scandals and how the old intersects (thanks to Jason Breidenbach for the link) with the new.

America Coming Together, a 527 group presided over by former Clinton aide Harold Ickes and heavily funded by George Soros and other wealthy Leftwing individuals getting richer with George Bush’s tax cuts : ), has been required to pay a fine the equivalent of which is a paltry fraction of the almost $100 million spent in the 2004 election.

A scandal of this nature should tower over the perversions of a “family values” politician as the ramifications of such has a vast scope and ultimately affects us all in that Senator Clinton is vying for the highest office in the land

For a further view into the Liberal, Leftist, scandal read some excerpts from Byron York’s 2005 book “The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy,” which is available at NRO today and paints the reality in clear, concise description, which begins with the author’s note:

“On Wednesday, the Federal Election Commission slapped America Coming Together with a $775,000 fine — the third-largest such penalty in history — for violating campaign-finance laws in the 2004 election. Now largely defunct, America Coming Together was the biggest of the so-called “527” groups that took in millions from donors like George Soros for the purpose of defeating George W. Bush. In a case that has taken years to decide, the FEC ruled that America Coming Together did an end-run around the campaign-finance laws in 2004 by claiming it was using its money for non-partisan purposes like voter registration when it was in fact spending millions specifically targeting Bush.”

From the Left Coast via The New York Left Times OpEd page comes the “piece” “Occupation Hazard,” which discusses the future legality of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The legality in question is “the Authority” – which (is) to say “the occupying powers under unified command” – as Iraq’s effective legal government,” as granted under annual Security Council Resolutions.

According to the “piece” the “current mandate expires at the end of December,” and will require renewal. This past June, “the Iraqi Parliament passed a bill requiring that the next renewal should not be made without its advice and consent.”

Were the mandate not renewed it is conceivable that the U.S. would be required to leave Iraq, however, as the author says the “Bush administration is of course unlikely to give too much heed to any Security Council resolution.”

The author believes there is a possibility that if the Iraqi parliament chose not to allow renewal and the U.S. did not depart that this might “matter greatly to the Iraqis, even to the point of becoming the signal for a general uprising of Shiites against foreign forces.” This could then lead to a general uprising against our forces and those included in the multi-national coalition, Iraq finding another friend say Russia or “the most obvious and presumably most willing new partner for Mr. Maliki would be Shiite-dominated Iran.”

If this last were to become the reality while our military was still in Iraq the author theorizes the following:

“should the United States attack Iran pre-emptively? Some in high places favor this, but a pre-emptive American attack on Iran could quickly lead to an Iranian counterattack closing the Straits of Hormuz at the lower end of the Persian Gulf. The American forces would then be trapped — both their main supply line and their main evacuation route cut off.”

“It may be time to change the slogan on the yellow ribbon from “support the troops” to “defend the nation.” Rather than see the American army of liberation humiliatingly voted out of Iraq or have its avenue of exit cut off by opportunistic enemies, the Senate should join the Iraqi Parliament, through a “sense of the Senate” resolution, and call for the next Security Council mandate to be one that requires the progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, without haste but with all deliberate speed.”

Would the U.S. truly be cut off from its route of exit were it to strike at Iran? Certainly not without a fight and we can bring that, but “humiliatingly voted out of Iraq?” According to the author the remedy would be for our Senate to follow the lead of the Iraqi parliament and its non-binding resolution with the call for a withdrawal timetable.

The question of what to do were the mandate to require the U.S. presence reversed is not nothing and perhaps if it was to become a reality the U.S. should seriously consider heeding it, especially if Iraq leaned on Iran for support. As unattractive as our leaving too early would be the target area could become that much larger for our military and perhaps the U.S. could not worry so much about collateral damage as the war on terror would take quite a turn to the more violent.

The NY Times and NBC News are going to be “collaborating” in their coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Interesting, that word “collaboration,” Vichy is the first word to come to mind. So it’s official, rather than trying to bounce off each others tactics the two Liberally slanted sources of “news” will be openly conspiring together to slant the “news.”

Executive editor of the paper, in a message to the staff said:

“In brief, the arrangement goes like this: We will give NBC stories, graphics, pictures and The Caucus blog for their Web site. They will give us video for ours along with links that should expose many new readers to our online journalism.”

And it begins, I guess with video and article about the woman who would be president. Collaboration it is…

According to an editorial written by Australian professorial fellow and emeritus professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, Riaz Hassan, (“Interrupting a history of tolerance?”):

“The Zionist project for a Jewish state was predicated on centuries of Jewish sufferings in Europe.

Anti-Semitism was not an entrenched characteristic of Islamic ideology and history until the 20th century. Without doubt, European anti-Semitic writings and their translation into Arabic during the 19th century and German National Socialism in the 20th century were instrumental in instigating anti-Semitism throughout Arab lands.”

Strange revelation, not so much from Hassan, but more due to its publication in The Korea Herald today, following the extension of the deadline set by the Taliban for the release of 22 South Koreans for roughly the same number of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Pope Benedict recently chimed in on the hostage situation that may lead to the murder in cold blood of the 22 Christian missionaries calling the exploitation of innocent people as a "grave violation of human dignity:”

"Unfortunately the usual practice of exploiting innocent people for their own ends is spreading among armed groups. It is a grave violation of human dignity that clashes with every elementary norm of civility and rights and gravely offends divine law.”

Hopefully this will not exacerbate the situation as according to Professor Hassan in the September 26, 2006 issue of the Daily Times of Pakistan in his “VIEW: The Jihad and the West:”

“The need for a dialogue between Islam and the West has never been more acute than now, but Pope Benedict XVI’s recent description of Islam as “evil and inhuman” is clearly not the best approach. In his lecture on Faith and Reason at Regensburg University, the pope quoted the 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor Manuel II Palaeologus as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad [peace be upon him] brought was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.” Notwithstanding the Vatican’s statement that the pope meant no offence and, in fact, desired dialogue, in the eye of many Muslims his remarks only reinforced a false and biased view of Islam — not conducive to dialogue.”

In another example of intolerance toward radical Islam the South Korean government has asked YouTube to remove video clips from 2004 that “showed Koreans condemning Islam after a Korean translator was killed in Iraq in 2004, and a Korean woman preaching Christianity to a group of Afghan children. It was not disclosed who posted the videos, which have now been taken down.”

Further in the effort to avoid provoking the Taliban, “the Korean Government Information Agency asked Youtube last Friday to delete the content on the grounds that it falsely portrays Christians and Koreans alike.” The Christian portrayal refers to a quote from a YouTube post that said, "I am Korean myself and right now 90 percent of Korean public also think that those stupid Korean Christians deserve what has happened."

So in the effort to bring the 22 hostages home safely a view of the world that the likes of the Taliban most violently represents is wiped from the public record.

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

Nothing but tough love from Tehran's substitute Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati this morning. Speaking to the congregation of recent talks with the U.S. he said:

“Iran is ready to do whatever the Iraqi people and government demand to provide Iraq with security. In the talks, we tried to make the Americans understand their mistakes in Iraq. The Americans were frankly reminded about their mistakes in Iraq and they were asked why they were still lingering in an Islamic country which has an elected government."

“There is a collection of hooligans in Iraq now. If the Americans and the British were not in Iraq, the government in Baghdad could deal with these terrorists and mischief-makers."

"The more the occupiers remain in Iraq, the more loss they would inflict on themselves. They are getting more and more hated by the world people and they would eventually have to withdraw from Iraq with shame.”

The minister of love also made note of the anniversary of the “33-day war” between “Lebanese Hezbollah” and the “Zionist regime,” and said:

"The victory was not only for Hezbollah but also for Islam and the Muslims. The Lebanese are for a government which would not be a puppet regime and do not let the dirty Zionists bully them."

"Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic government in Iraq are also the winners."

Praise Allah, Mohammed (PBUH) and all that rot.

If it bleeds it leads is one reason we are all too well aware of as to why the news has more good then bad; even when more good than bad may have happened. Watch any local newscast and the coverage is wall to wall crime, accidents and anything that might bring in the viewers hoping for some action and car chases.

In Iraq, from Abu Ghraib, Fallujah to Haditha, the truth isn’t nearly as important as the story; much like the Duke Lacrosse players in their travails and tribulation facing prison time for a rape they did not commit nor even happened.

All this is unfortunate for us in that it leads to an acceptance of what isn’t as those it is, which brings us to all the horror stories of our soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers and presently our heartless “killers” in Iraq. Perhaps if the media wasn’t so starved or easily self-mislead toward the worst in us in a war they disagree with we might have a true picture of what exactly is going on.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, contributing editor at NRO had a great column yesterday that I had hoped to bring attention to, however failed on that task. From John Kerry and the “Winter Soldier Investigation” from Vietnam, to Stephen Glass of National Review fame, Owens reveals a reason that we should all take what we hear of atrocity with a grain of salt before we go on the rampage beating ourselves, our military and our nation down as though it is not worthy of spitting on.

Owens does not deny the reality that horrible things happen and anyone that does is obviously a fool probably cannot speak beyond the monosyllabic. That said however, it is a fool that in knee jerk order accepts that which paints what our military does as everything but honorable as though each member in its ranks cheered on the anomaly, not “new management” at Abu Gharaib.

A personal anecdote shared by Owens during his time in Vietnam goes:

“I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier. According to his story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered.

Some months later, I happened to overhear another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed.”

Instances of atrocity are undeniable in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere; they happen in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and we’re not there. As a matter of fact horrible acts are committed daily all over the world. This is not to justify the action of those that commit them, but to allow ourselves the calm that should come knowing that it is not in our military’s first instinct to commit them.

We should doubt that which we read or see in the news until we know more. All the claims of support of our troops is nothing if you expect the worse of them.

Was it a success? Or was it just another debate but with a face on the question? Was it just wishful thinking on my part or was there a brief nano-second(?) of a bust to the right of the person with the first question (his left)?

Yesterday I had concerns about the YouTube angle of the debate making it more of an entertainment extravaganza and said, “I cringe to contemplate faux sincerity from the candidates in response to a question asked by a “real live” previously recorded video of an American citizen.”

Having actually viewed the debate, I didn’t actually cringe at these home made video questions, but just the same the whole addition was kind of useless. Overall I thought the setting and tone of the “show” was good; it was actually better than I had expected. However (seven letter word for “but”), the content was “as expected,” which is unless you’re an easily convinced monkey there was nothing of any use.

Last night a couple hours after the “show” I was a guest on Political Vindication Radio with hosts Shane and Frank the authors of Political Vindication (archive here and previous visit here, entire archive here). As usual it was a lot of fun and I think you will find informative; even if you just agree. You can also listen to their weekly show “Live” every Wednesday nights at 6:00PM Pacific Time by going here.

I’m sure there are many opinions out there as to how things went, but one that I find interesting is from Byron York and his take on “Obama’s Bad Night,” at NRO. Yes, now when I think of it, he did come off as an amateur, but in my partisan way it is and was difficult to take any of them seriously.

Last night Shane, Frank and I did take notice of Senator Clinton’s (speaking of “Hillary,” was the questioner that used her first name a “Plant?”), response to the question regarding the “leadership” question answered first by Obama (the one York sees as revealing), her answer from CNN:

“Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy. And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”

Her response we agreed was pretty impressive, at least as impressive as an answer from a Democrat presidential candidate is concerned. What I find galling is the impression one gets and the easy skirting of a question, the answer to which everyone is impressed with.

We certainly wouldn’t want a new president jumping in with both feet in the ignorance of where those feet might land; but does this new president have to start at the beginning again? It sounds like we would be getting right back into the game of the “discussion” is the “fix.” We meet, therefore the problem is resolved. Where has a President “Clinton” been all these years while not in the Oval Office that she would really question or wonder what the intentions of an Iran would be? Has she not been paying attention? Has she been too busy as everyone else has been going over the same “we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq” mantra without realizing the time has passed and we’re now looking at the year 2007?

This is the main problem I find with our politicians these days, but especially so with the Democrat party politicians. What they have honed is the skill of avoiding responding and/or doing anything about something that may come back to haunt them. This is a part of the reason; I believe President Bush has gotten as much flack as he has. My belief is obviously naïve to a degree, but you can count on the fact that none of these candidates from the Democrat Debate last night will ever make a tough call as President Bush has with regard to Iraq.

We will instead jump on back to the good old days, when diplomacy alone was the answer; not so much because it gave us answers, but because the process was on-going and took time to bear fruit and allowed the politicians to make believe things were working for something, anything they said it was.

Just about every military intervention of the U.S. since Vietnam has been referred to as a “quagmire,” in one form or another. It has become a catchphrase that speaks volumes, however elicits no details other than the minds eye portrays. Once labeled a “quagmire” a war or battle has likely heard its last level headed remark made about it; that goes for those in support of or against the conflagration in question.

There has to be a time that we will remove the majority of our forces from Iraq, however, a specific date cannot be selected and certainly not when things might be taking the kind of turn that may give us the first glimmer of a paced exodus that is actually based on a workable improvement; a real possibility of ‘perhaps they can take the helm on their own.’

The “quagmire” admitted to is a “quagmire” more of the mind than of the physical reality of one. Physically “quagmire” is a measurement of degree and subjection that is thought of differently depending upon the point of view, so to me it is a fairly useless assessment as to any movement forward or backward. One can get from point A to point B through the thick mud or “quagmire” an inch at a time or in a barely perceptible manner and if so, do we judge it before getting to B prior to actually getting there?

“Quagmire” is most realistically descriptive of the mental “quagmire” that so many involved directly and indirectly are dealing with when we discuss Iraq. It is best illustrated this morning in The NY Times in an article entitled, “Standing Against the War, but Unsure How to End it.” Forget about whether the toilet paper is speaking on either side of the political spectrum. Read what is actually being said; “Now, what do we do now? Walk away? We should really ramp it up, or get out now” and “It’s fighting between Republicans and Democrats, I don’t even know that they’re really looking at doing anything.” No one quite knows how to end it and one reason for that is no one knows what “end it” means.

If we pull out on Bill Richardson’s timeline (all out by March/April ’08) or even the, dare I say more realistic Joe Biden time frame (at least a year at minimum); what “end,” are we talking about? It would perhaps be the “end” to our concentrated and numeric involvement, but that is not truly an end is it? I don’t believe it would be unrealistic to envision that it would continue and worsen in the overall region, having ramifications that make our involvement now appear trivial.

If we stick it out and see the “surge” through to September awaiting the report of General Petraeus it won’t be over either. Many seem to believe and I’m sure will fight tooth and nail to use his interim report as “proof” the “surge” is not working and Iraq is “lost.” However, the “surge” is a prime example of the day to day morphing of the battlefield and how our unrivalled military addresses it. It is the politics of the battlefield; not the battlefield of politics.

This morning, the “U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09, is an article on a classified plan, “which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador.” The “plan” is not an end either, but it strikes me as a move forward (no promises) that has the means to turn our mental “quagmire” on its head but only if we allow it.

“Well, to be candid, that’s a hypothetical that I’m just not prepared to address. We are determined to do all that we can, while we’re given the opportunity to try to bring this to as successful as reasonable a conclusion as is possible, and that is really what is just what I’m devoting all my intellectual energy and physical energy to at this point in time, not thinking about what the implications of not getting it right are.”

-- spin from one on the side of Cheney and “extremist, Republican partisans,” General Petraeus in response to Hugh Hewitt’s question of what we might expect as the consequences of defeat in Iraq.

It is unfortunate; though not surprising that Andrew Sullivan would have qualms about General Petraeus’ interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday and chose to pre-emptively judge the move on the part of the general as “working from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans.”

This, he believes “renders Petraeus’ military independence moot,” but before passing judgment he’ll “wait for the transcript,” wee bit late on the withholding of judgment already. Believing Petraeus a willing cog or just allowing himself to be used by the “Republican propaganda machine” are charges of a partisan crime that leave Sullivan believing the he now knows “whose side” the general “seems” to be on.

I don’t blame the rising of anyone’s hackles when something they believe in the success of (losing Iraq in this instance), may be thwarted by someone in the top tier, someone whose judgment we should all be able to trust. I do however, question their judgment when they lay it all on the line and plant the seed, so to speak, for forwarding the argument of doubt for September based in part on an interview unheard or transcript unread (unavailable at the time of Hewitts post regarding the interview, therefore unavailable to Sullivan as well).

Sullivan inserts the next piece in the puzzle that is the Democrat propaganda plan of attack for the general’s report in September on the progress in Iraq.

Accusing someone of Hugh Hewitt’s caliber of being a tool of “extremist, Republican partisanship” is a sad statement just because you disagree with his views on various issues. A more “moderate” voice in the media to Sullivan is what or who; CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or any of the rest? Interviewers from these fonts may well be more to Sullivan’s liking, they would however ask more leaning question, the answers of which they would use to spin the continuing tale of utter desperation, abject failure and to quote the Time’s editorial board, the “colossal waste of the nation’s blood and treasure.”

No, we hear from these purveyors of “selective prescience” much too much these days and take what they feed us as reality; when the reality is it offers a very incomplete and unbalanced diet in its best of reporting. An interview by Hugh Hewitt, whose questions you can listen to or read, combined with the answers to these questions as provided by someone in a real leadership position should be viewed as the least of the partisan means of getting the information.

To believe the General Petraeus as partisan when his life’s work has been dedicated to the defense of his nation and now the protection of the soldiers under him as well is to take the chance of dishonoring someone that likely has more honor in one finger than many can hope to have in their entire being. Not withstanding this syrupy judgment of a man I do not know; regardless of the interviewer, someone in Petraeus’ position should be provided with a modicum of the benefit of the doubt; it is after all the general whose judgment we will need to rely upon come September.

Based upon how things are going now, I expect to hear that things are looking up (up from where of course is another question) and that likely more of what has been taking place with the “surge” offensive will be necessary. I will look upon this as hopeful and positive while others will see it as proof our entanglement in Iraq does not have a set date, time and second for completion; they will want and require that. If the threats we face are to be driven back we cannot let them have what it is they want as it’s an excuse to accomplish nothing.