Why are there no more Humphrey/JFK/FDR Democrats?  Why are they all now Evil Leftists?

Read the latest from Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker.  You'll find out how the late radical Saul Alinsky maintains a tight grip over the imaginations of Hillary Clinton and George Soros long after his death.  Hillary is following Alinsky's rules religiously:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/hillary_soros_alinsky_and_rush.html

"If you want a complete rundown on how all of Hillary's and Soros' "non-profit groups" work together in her plan to take over America, get yourself a copy of the book by her mentor, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.  In it, you'll find the complete outline for throwing Judeo/Christian principles and honesty to the winds of revolutionary fervor.  Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky's since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969.  If her admiration of Alinsky had died with her thesis, no one would care.  But it didn't.  He remained a close confidant until his death (The Shadow Party, p. 56) and his tactical fingerprints are all over her projection of the false "Centrist" image she is manipulating to garner political power.  It's all in the book."

Rush Limbaugh is a big stumbling block for the Evil Leftists' plans for the Stalinization of America:

"Hillary's media attack machine Media Matters first tried to hush Rush by attempting to have him thrown off the Armed Forces Radio and

Television Service in May 2004.  In a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, they demanded Rush be silenced after his "trivialization" of the military misconduct at the Abu Ghraib prison.  The gag on Rush was necessary, they wrote, "to protect our troops from these reckless and dangerous messages." 

Senator Tom Harkin jumped on the Hush-Rush Campaign that time too, just as he is now, demanding "balance" in media.  With the taxpayer-funded, liberal propaganda organ, NPR, being broadcast to the troops 24/7, it's hard to believe that anyone could feel one hour a day of Rush Limbaugh is a threat to balance.  If anything, that one hour of Rush may be the only balance to the unending, livestream of "The-War-Is-Lost" Harry Reid and his Democrat followers:  Tom Harkin, John Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy."

Also, Hillary is following Alinsky's rules when she attempts to present herself as a moderate.  This one's not working so well for her.  And, Soros and Hillary came up with the idea for defaming General Petraeus from Alinsky's book.  American patriotism is a stumbling block for their Commie machinations.  American respect for the military is a stumbling block for them also.  For these hard-core Stalinists, stumbling blocks must be removed--any way necessary.  No matter the methods.  No matter who they have to destroy.  The ends do justify ANY means. 

We know exactly what kind of society they want for America.  We've seen those kinds of societies emerge in the 20th century.  They were called the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, etc. 

America would cease to be America if they have their way.  We know exactly how Evil it would be.  This doesn't matter at all to the Stalinists.  Power is everything to them.

Read Shiver's essay.  It explains much that has been heretofore inexplicable about Democrat politics.

This is a short post.  You've read my previous posts on Rush Limbaugh and the Phony Soldier.  Here's your chance to respond to the injustice the Evil Left is trying to perpetrate against Rush.  Click on this link to StandWithRush
Please, sign this petition.  Please stand with Rush.  Below is the URL.

http://www.standwithrush.com/

Thank you.

Rush Limbaugh and the Phony Soldier  Part 4

Jesse Macbeth, the Phony Solider cited by Rush Limbaugh, was born Jesse Adam Al-Zaid!  Was he an Islamofascist operative?  Was he serving his masters even as far back as when he joined the military?  Was he serving his masters by getting himself booted out of the military?  Was he serving his masters when he MADE UP STORIES about purported American atrocities in Iraq?  Was he serving his masters' allies, Evil Leftists, by appearing around the world repeating those lies?  And now that Rush Limbaugh has busted him and his fellow Phony Soldiers, will the Evil Left finally get the message?  Will they finally realize that Americans will NOT put up with the lies of Islamofascist operatives and their Evil Leftist handlers?

Inquiring minds want to know:


"Senator Reid is chastising Limbaugh for the "controversy" about fake soldier Jesse Macbeth, and his testimony about war crimes he witnessed and participated in while deployed in Iraq. Jesse Macbeth claimed to be a Ranger. Jesse Macbeth LIED.

In truth, according to About.com, Jesse Macbeth's real name is Jesse Adam Al-Zaid. Hmmmmm???? What to make of that? A person with an exceptionally Anglo Saxon name like Macbeth, from Shakespeare mind you, to have a birth name that is decidedly Muslim sounding?????

Odd too! I guess there's not even the remotest of chances that Macbeth, oooppps, I mean al-Zaid, might have an axe to grind against the US and the military in particular? Naw! I'm just imagining stuff. I mean, there is no chance that this Muslim looking and name sounding individual might have an ulterior motive, right? 'Course not! I shouldn't let my imagination run away with me - that's a right reserved strictly for the more caring among us.

The actual truth is Macbeth was in the US Army for 44 days. He claimed he was an Iraq combat vet; he LIED. He claimed he was a corporal; he LIED. He claimed he was a Ranger; he LIED. As to atrocities, he claimed to have "... started shooting them, started taking them out. ... We would burn their bodies, hang the bodies from the rafters ... after a while, it's just sickening to think that I took part in that." He LIED! None of the claims he made are real."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/399622/rush_limbaugh_controversy.html

Rush Limbaugh and the Phony Soldier Part 3

 

There were two interviews this morning on cable news dealing with Rush Limbaugh and the Phony Soldier.  My e-mail responses will tell you all you need to know about them.

 

First, to MS NBC:

 

This morning, between 8:30 and 9:00 CDT, I had the misfortune of stumbling onto an interview with General Wesley Clark on MS-NBC dealing with what Rush Limbaugh supposedly said on his talk show about phony soldiers.  The reporter never said what Rush really said; she merely repeated Democrat talking point on how Rush denigrated the troops by calling those who question the war in Iraq as phony warriors.  And Clark, being the partisan Democrat that he is, played along.

 

If she had had the slightest hint of the inquisitive reporter within her, she would have found out what this rank amateur found out with very little effort by listening to Rush and checking certain web sites on the Internet.  Rush DID NOT accuse ANY real soldiers of being phony soldiers; he was referencing a man named Jesse Macbeth and men like him who made up all kinds of war stories about themselves when actually they either never served in the military or (as with Macbeth) they were drummed out of basic training.

 

Here is the relevant outtake from Rush’s transcript on this subject.  It is available on his web site for free.  You don’t need a secret membership decoder ring to get in:

 

[Right here I inserted the outtake from Rush’s transcript I used in the earlier post.]

 

This kind of reportorial incompetence is driving us Americans to radio talk shows where we get the news straight, undoctored by the Democrat spin doctors.  When 24/7 TV cable news channels began, we HOPED we’d get reports from around the world from places we average Americans had no hope of ever seeing, reporting on events we’d have no access to, interviews with people with expertise we have little knowledge of, and breaking news of live events we had to know about, like the September 11 attacks.

 

You have mastered only the last.  You’ve failed us in ALL of the other aspects of news.  Instead we get Democrat talking points, Brittany Spears and her custody battle, OJ, OJ and more OJ, and news we can easily get, accurately and in great detail on the Internet.

 

If you’re wondering why your ratings are so low, well, now you know.  Are you going to do something about it?  Somehow I doubt it.

 

[I consider the two paragraphs I wrote after I inserted Rush’s outtake to be the best summation of why I detest the MSM.  Do you agree?]

 

And then, to Fox News:

 

Thank you for the interview this morning (between 8:30 and 9:00 CDT) with the Congressman who is working on passing a commendation for Rush Limbaugh’s excellent work in supporting our troops.

 

I KNOW Rush NEVER said troops who questioned the war are phony; he was referencing to phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth who lied about their service.

 

We often immediately notice reporting that enrages us and ignore that which gratifies us.  I thought I’d break that tendency by taking note of your excellent reporting this morning.

[If you see reporting that enrages you or gratifies you, please let the news shows know.  Perhaps--crossing fingers here--we'll finally enjoy better reporting as a result.]

Here's a short post for you.  Food for thought for Evil Leftists:


If you've never been a cop, are you allowed to discuss crime?

If you've never been a firefighter, are you allowed to discuss fire preventions?

If you've never been a politician, are you allowed to criticize politicians?

If you've never been in the military, are you allowed to discuss war?


Be very, very careful.  A "chickenhawk" argument is a very sharp sword that can cut both ways.

Rush Limbaugh and the Phony Soldier Part 2

 

Here’s a follow-up to yesterday’s post on Harry Reid’s revolting conduct.  First, check out Michelle Malkin’s excellent summary of the Dems' act of self-destruction.  Here’s a short outtake:

 

“That letter read in part: “Our troops are righting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech…

 

“We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments … and ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.”

 

The fact is, Limbaugh pointed out on the air that the “phony soldiers” he referred to were just that – Americans who falsely claim they have been in the Armed Forces and in some cases say they have been to Iraq.

 

He was specifically referring to Jesse Macbeth, who appeared in a widely seen YouTube video in which he claimed he had been a corporal serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded a Purple Heart. He also described how he and other U.S. soldiers had killed innocent civilians there.”

 

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_reid_phony/2007/10/01/37251.html?s=al&promo_code=3ABB-1

 

And then, Tom “Look Who’s Talking” Harkin.  Nailed by the Gateway Pundit:

 

Senator Harkin lashed out at Rush Limbaugh today on the floor of the Senate:

Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse.

 

Nice. But, considering Harkin's phony soldier duty claims it only makes sense that he would be angry at Rush:

 

In Mr. Harkin's case, the questions that have lingered longest concern his Navy record. Mr. Harkin did serve in the Navy during the Vietnam era, but exactly what he did, and for how long, remain a matter of some dispute.

 

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/phony-soldier-attacks-rush-limbaugh.html

 

Oh, and don’t forget John “I served in Vietnam” Kerry.  What did he say about our troops a few years ago on CBS’s Sunday morning talk show, “Face the Nation?”

 

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs."

Here is the transcript for "Face the Nation"-

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

 

And then there’s John Murtha.  He tried, convicted and executed Marines without benefit of trial.  And now, it turns out that the Marines didn’t do what he and the MSM accused them of doing.  Check out Chris Matthews’ “softball questions” of Murtha:

 

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me ask you Mr. Murtha to give us some details about that. Draw us a picture of what happened at Haditha.

 

REP. JOHN “JACK” MURTHA: Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians. And, and –

 

MATTHEWS:—was this My Lai? Was this a case of – when you say cold blood Congressman, a lot of people think you’re basically saying you got some civilians sitting in a room around a field and they’re executed.

 

MURTHA: That’s exactly it.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/05/18/john-murtha-hangs-the-marines/

 

Oh, and don’t forget the General “Betray Us” NYT ad aimed at General Petraeus.

 

What is the lesson we should learn about these Dem slander of Rush Limbaugh and our troops?  It is simply this: It’s time we take back America by systematically voting these 21^st century Benedict Arnolds OUT OF OFFICE!!!  How do we do that?  ORGANIZE.  Pick a good, solid conservative politician in your district or state, and SUPPORT him or her THIS YEAR in preparation for the primaries and the general election NEXT YEAR.

[Are you listening  to me, citizens of Nevada?  You know what Harry Reid is now.  Next time he's up for re-election, you will have no excuse if you vote for him.]

 

And then REPEAT this procedure election after election until we have an unbeatable, veto-proof, solid majority of pro-American Republicans in Congress.

 

No, we can no longer get along.  No, we have no more common ground.  The Dems are Evil Leftists, traitors, and our enemies.

 

We will not forgive.  We will not forget.

Yes, it’s worse for the Evil Left than you’d expect.  Harry Reid and his Evil Leftist lyin’ buddies were busted within minutes of their anti-Rush shenanigans.  Check out Peter Wehner’s outing of Media Matters.  Well, actually, Rush beat him to it.  :)

“In the latest effort to target Rush Limbaugh, the left-leaning group Media Matters has manufactured yet one more false — and by now yet one more tiresome — controversy. This one has to do with Limbaugh’s use of the phrase “phony soldiers.” According to the Media Matters narrative, on his September 26 program Limbaugh accused troops who want to withdraw from Iraq of being “phony soldiers.” Once Media Matters published this charge, key Democrats dutiful echoed it. In a public statement, Senator John Kerry said this: “This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the Chicken Hawk wing of the far right, is an insult to American troops. In a single moment on his show, Limbaugh managed to question the patriotism of men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line and many who died for his right to sit safely in his air conditioned studio peddling hate. On August 19th, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division critical of George Bush’s Iraq policy. Two of those soldiers were killed earlier this month in Baghdad. Does Mr. Limbaugh dare assert that these heroes were ‘phony soldiers’? Mr. Limbaugh owes an apology to everyone who has ever worn the uniform of our country, and an apology to the families of every soldier buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He is an embarrassment to his Party, and I expect the Republicans who flock to his microphone will now condemn this indefensible statement.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4YWQzMTQyNzQ=

So, TheLeftIsEvil got involved by writing the following to the two senators from the great state of Minnesota, Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar:

Dear Senator:

Senator Harry Reid has just written a letter to the CEO of ClearChannel accusing Rush Limbaugh of denigrating members of the military who oppose the war in Iraq by calling them “Phony Soldiers.” 

A little honesty and investigative moxy by Senator Reid would have revealed the fact that Rush Limbaugh had outed one man named Jesse Macbeth last Friday on his program, a man who claimed that he had been an Army Ranger and a veteran of the Iraq War.  A many who was being used by the Left to denigrate our soldiers.  A man who claimed that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes against Iraqis.  A man who actually was kicked out of the Army after being declared unfit for duty.  A true Phony Soldier.  He never was an Army Ranger.  He never received a Purple Heart.  He never finished basic training.

Here is an outtake from the transcript of what Rush actually said:

The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger.  He was drummed out of the military in 44 days.  He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities.  He became a hero to the anti-war left.  They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up.  When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it.  There's no retraction; there's no apology; there's no, "Uh-oh, sorry."  After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you'll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply "yeah, the phony soldiers."  

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html

Senator Reid is asking you to sign his letter to ClearChannel.  I’m asking you to refuse.  Please write and sign a counter letter praising Rush for outing a liar, one who defamed our brave men and women serving in Iraq and around the world.

Thank you.

More sources below.  Eat them and choke, Senator Reid:

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/09/rush-limbaugh-phony-soldiers-flap-abc.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/30/abc-reported-phony-heroes-three-days-rush-limbaugh-did

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/30/rush-limbaugh-phony-soldiers-and-the-lefts-desperate-need-for-its-own-betray-us-moment/

And check out this video from ABC News.  They busted a number of these phony soldiers, including Jesse Macbeth.  You will have to put up with a short commercial first:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3645227

For more background into Phony Soldier Macbeth (I like that appropriately Shakespearian name) check this outtake from Wikipedia:

Jesse Adam Macbeth (b. Jesse Adam Al-Zaid,^[1] in 1984) falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq War. He lied in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq.^[2][3] Transcripts of the video were made in English and Arabic.^[4] According to the U.S. Army, there is no record of Macbeth being a Ranger,^[5][6] or serving in a combat unit: he was discharged from the service after having been declared unfit or unsuitable for the Army, or both,^[7] before he could complete basic training.^[8]

After his release from the Army in 2004, Macbeth purported himself to be a veteran, telling war stories and garnering attention from mainstream,^[9] alternative^[10] and student media outlets. He joined Iraq Veterans Against the War in January of 2006,^[11] and represented, or was scheduled to represent them publicly at various events throughout the country;^[12][13][14] the organization has since said it does not endorse Macbeth or his accounts of military service.^[11] Accounts in Macbeth's name appear on Military.com and Myspace.com, and both were used to post claims about military service in Iraq.^[15] On September 21, 2007 Macbeth admitted in federal court that he had faked his war record. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan declared that Macbeth had been in the Army for just 40 days and had been kicked out as unfit.^[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

 

Here’s the list of those Dems--compiled by the Daily Kos--who voted against the resolution that condemned Moveon.org for its Evil Leftist lying (am I being redundant?) New York Times ad that called General Petraeus “betray us”. 

By doing this, they’ve actually done us conservatives a favor.  Now we know exactly who the traitors in Congress are.  Now we can check on these Reps and Senators (alphabetically) in one convenient place at any time.  And you don't even have to go to that Evil Leftist web site to do so.  Just check it on my site below:

by kos:

Wed Sept 26, 2007 at 11:02:07 AM PDT

Here's a list of those Democrats we can trust to have our backs:

Senate:

Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA), Brown (OH), Byrd (WV), Clinton (NY), Dodd (CT), Durbin (IL), Feingold (WI), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Lautenberg (NJ), Levin (MI), Mendendez (NJ), Murray (WA), Obama (IL)*, Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Sanders (VT), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Whitehouse (RI) and Wyden (OR)

House:

Abercrombie, Ackerman, Allen, Baldwin, Becerra, Berman, Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Capps, Capuano, Castor, Clarke, Clay, Cohen, Conyers, Crowley, Davis (IL), DeGette, Ellison, Filner, Frank (MA), Al Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings (FL), Hinchey, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Inslee, Jackson-Lee (TX), Jefferson, Johnson (GA), Jones (OH), Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), Lofgren, Markey, Matsui, McDermott, McGovern, Meek (FL), Michaud, Miller (NC), Miller, George, Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Nadler, Neal (MA), Olver, Pallone, Payne
Price (NC), Rush, Ryan (OH), Sánchez, Linda T., Schakowsky, Scott (VA), Serrano, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Tierney, Towns, Van Hollen, Velázquez, Wasserman Schultz, Waters, Watson, Watt, Waxman, Weiner, Wexler, Woolsey, Wynn and Yarmuth

Everyone else is a fair-weather friend, at best.

Update: Added Obama to the list. He abstained in the anti-MoveOn bill, but his rationale (it was a protest against a ridiculous piece of legislation) was sound.

And since it wasn't clear, this was regarding the anti-MoveOn resolutions. These are the Democrats who refused to throw netroots activists under the bus while aiding and abetting bulls**t Republican efforts to distract on Iraq.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/26/13405/4703

 

Robert Kaplan's sequel to his in-depth study of American troops stationed in varied Third World nations, "Imperial Grunts" has just been published.

"Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts" details the lives of Navy and Air Force noncoms in the same clear, detailed, engaging way.  I've just begun reading it, and am enjoying it enormously.

His description of the "rendezvous" of a tanker and supply ship with the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer, is worth the price of the book.  The precision of the action is emphasized by Kaplan when he points out that few other navies can pull off an "Un-Rep" (an underway replenishment) under full steam.  He compared it to a docking in space.  And the tale takes only a few pages near the front.  I read with gratification of how Marines are training troops in Niger to oppose encroaching Islamofascist terrorists, and how highly (it was obvious) the Nigerans regarded their American trainers in the chapter, "America's African Rifles.".

Next stop: the North Pacific.  Believe me, I'll be commenting here again and again on this book.

If, like me, you've never been in the military, you'll learn specifics you could never learn elsewhere.  If you've been in the military, Kaplan will introduce you to branches of the service even you knew nothing about.  There is simply no other way to learn so much about our world-girdling American armed forces than by accompanying a talented, inquisitive writer on his world-hopping tour of the our military via his books.

Warmly recommended.

If you're a Republican, you will LOVE it.  Kaplan clearly loves our noncoms.  If you're a moderate Democrat, you'll learn not only what our troops do but WHY they do it.  If you're an Evil Leftist Democrat...well, there's no hope for you.

BTW, Hugh Hewitt will be conducting a THREE HOUR interview with Robert Kagan this Thursday.  Listen live via KRLA 870 radio's audio-streaming here:

http://krla870.townhall.com/

Now, after you've gone to Michael Totten's web site and read his description of what victory over al Qaeda feels like to the liberated Iraqis in Anbar Province, check out Victor Davis Hanson's latest to find out why doing this is so difficult.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson091407.html

Here are a few outtakes to tease you:

"First, there is the degree to which terrorists can obtain weapons sophisticated enough to kill well-protected soldiers of a far more affluent society. That requisite need not mean parity with the arsenal of the more advanced nation, but rather only the ability to nullify much of its technological superiority.

The terrorist always scores points when his cheap, workmanlike weapons triumph over high-tech gadgetry — think of simple rocket-propelled grenade rounds blowing apart a $2 million Blackhawk helicopter, or simple, imported roadside bombs still immune to the countermeasures dreamed up by a Pentagon task force."

"Second is the enemy’s desire and ability to kill the requisite number of Westerners in sufficiently savage fashion — hanging their corpses on a bridge or executing them on the internet — to cause large-scale demoralization on the home front. Savagery is a force multiplier: the more horrific the carnage on the suburban televisions of America, the better."

"Third, there is the problem of new global communications — another advantage for insurgents who want to exhaust the West. It is often said that had the weeks in the hedgerows after D-Day (June to late July 1944) or the Battle of the Bulge (December 1944 to January 1945) been televised each hour on CNN or Fox — with real-time email and cell phone communications with beleaguered soldiers in the field — we would never have won either battle. Both victories saw horrific casualties as a result of intelligence failures and sheer incompetence, but our culpable generals counted on enough of a window of public ignorance to rectify their mistakes and continue the battle.

None of these developments means that we won’t win in Iraq, stabilize the nascent democracy there, and help bring prosperity to the heart of the Middle East. But we should accept that in a world of increasing Western material comfort, it is becoming far harder for postmodern societies like the United States and Europe to fight ever more premodern foes."

Happily, as Totten's report shows us, defeating terrorism, even in a beaten down Third World country like Iraq, is eminently doable.  Especially by our incredibly brave and kindly American troops.

Michael Totten tells you what you need to know about it.  Thanks to Hugh Hewitt, I found out about this marvelous writer.  http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

Hugh read the second part of the report on his radio show.  A podcast link will be posted at his site later.

Independent journalist Michael Totten...

http://Michaeltotten.com/

...recently visited Ramadi and Anbar Province in Iraq.  His reports of our American troops’ enormous success there is nothing short of astonishing.  We are winning the war in Iraq because we are winning the hearts and minds of the people.  In a two-part report on his web site, Totten gives the reader telling details including a gallery of marvelous pictures.

Do you still wonder why we are spending our blood and treasure way over there in Iraq?  After you read this report you will wonder no more.

Don’t believe me?  Check out a few outtakes:

"Some in the United States are unconvinced that Al Qaeda was really at the center of the conflict in Anbar. So I asked Colonel John Charlton how the Army knows Al Qaeda is really who they have been dealing with. He was supremely annoyed by the question.

“We know it’s Al Qaeda,” he said. There is no controversy whatsoever about this in Iraq. My question seemed to him as if it had come from another planet. “They self-identify as Al Qaeda. We didn’t give them that name. That’s what they call themselves. We have their propaganda CDs which have Al Qaeda written all over them.”

 

"Al Qaeda was initially welcomed by many Iraqis in Ramadi because they said they were there to fight the Americans. The spirit of resistance against foreign occupiers was strong. But the Iraqis got a lot more in the bargain than simply resistance.

“Al Qaeda came in and just seized people’s houses,” said Army Captain Phil Messer from Nashville, Tennessee. “They said we’re taking your house to use it against the Americans. Get out.”

“Every mosque in the city was anti-American,” Captain McGee said. “They were against us, but Al Qaeda made it even worse by ordering them to broadcast anti-American propaganda at gunpoint.”

 

"Nothing exploded and nobody shot at us. The first kids I ever saw in Ramadi ran from us, but it never once happened again. Only two or three minutes later, children excitedly greeted us as they did every other time I stepped out into the streets of the city and the surrounding countryside.

“Three months ago people turned their backs to us,” Sergeant Hicks said. “They refused to even smile. They were like beaten dogs.”

 

“We have genuinely good relations with the Iraqi Army here,” Lieutenant Hightower said. “We live in the same rooms. They are almost like my own soldiers. We go to their funerals.”

Every soldier and Marine I met in Anbar Province spoke highly of and with great admiration for their Iraqi counterparts. It was a completely different world from the Baghdad area where so many Americans hold the Iraqis in contempt as corrupt incompetents who let themselves be infiltrated by terrorists and insurgents.

“Some of the Iraqi Police here were insurgents, though,” he said. “We sent them to Jordan for training and when they got there they had serious background checks. Some of them were yanked out of the IP and sent to prison.”

So there has been a weeding out process, unlike in many parts of Iraq. And some of the police were insurgents who switched sides when they realized Al Qaeda, and not the Americans, were the real enemy.

“The Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police here are amazing,” Lieutenant Hightower said. “For a long time they weren’t being paid, but they risked their lives every day and did their jobs anyway.”

They are being paid now, but not very much. Iraqi Police officers only earn 300 or so dollars per month.

“What are you doing here anyway?” he said. “Not much happens in Ramadi anymore. Nothing blows up anymore. There’s no blood and guts here.”

There certainly was blood and guts, though. Just a few blocks from the station is a soccer stadium that was used during the war as a mass grave site.

“We found bodies buried in the middle of the soccer field by insurgents,” Lieutenant Hightower said. “After the war ended the Iraqis had to unearth the bodies. They called it Operation Graveyard.”

 

“Al Qaeda hit a six month old baby with a mortar when they were trying to hit us,” Lieutenant Hightower said when he got off the phone. “They also hit a six year old girl. We went in and medi-vacced the victims, and we made lots of friends that day. It was a clarifying experience for the Iraqis.”

It was a clarifying experience for the Iraqis because they had been raised on virulent anti-American conspiracy theories and propaganda from Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. They truly believed the Army and Marines were there to steal their oil and women. Americans saving the lives of children wounded by fellow Sunni Arabs who passed themselves off as liberators was not what many Iraqis ever expected to see."

 

“Jassim was pissed off because American artillery fire was landing in his area,” Colonel Holmes said. “But he wasn’t pissed off at us. He was pissed off at Al Qaeda because he knew they always shot first and we were just shooting back.”

 

“A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city,” said Captain McGee. “The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road.”

“In mid-March,” Lieutenant Hightower said, “a sniper operating out of a house was shooting Americans and Iraqis. Civilians broke into his house, beat the hell out of him, and turned him over to us.”

 

“Al Qaeda struck out three times,” said Major Peters. “Strike One: They killed a Sheikh and held his body for four days. Strike Two: They executed young people in public. Strike Three: They attacked the compound of another sheikh. The people here said enough. They aligned with us because they realized Al Qaeda was the real enemy. They didn’t like Al Qaeda’s version of Islam at all.”

 

"And just last week Sheikh Sattar Abu Risha, the leader of the indigenous Anbar Salvation Council that declared Al Qaeda the enemy, was assassinated by a roadside bomb near his house.

That murder can’t undo the changes in the hearts and minds of the locals. If anything, assassinating a well-respected leader who is widely seen as a savior will only further harden Anbaris against the rough men who would rule them.

“All the tribes agreed to fight al Qaeda until the last child in Anbar,” the Sheikh’s brother Ahmed told a Reuters reporter.

Whether Anbar Province is freshly christened pro-American ground or whether the newly founded Iraqi-American alliance is merely temporary and tactical is hard to say. Whatever the case, the region is no longer a breeding ground for violent anti-American and anti-Iraqi forces."

 

“It was nothing we did,” said Marine Lieutenant Colonel Drew Crane who was visiting for the day from Fallujah. “The people here just couldn’t take it anymore.”

What he said next surprised me even more than what I was seeing.

“You know what I like most about this place?” he said.

“What’s that?” I said.

“We don’t need to wear body armor or helmets,” he said.

I was poleaxed. Without even realizing it, I had taken off my body armor and helmet. I took my gear off as casually as I do when I take it off after returning to the safety of the base after patrolling. We were not in the safety of the base and the wire. We were safe because we were in Ramadi."

 

"The Iraqis of Anbar Province turned against Al Qaeda and sided with the Americans in large part because Al Qaeda proved to be far more vicious than advertised. But it’s also because sustained contact with the American military – even in an explosively violent combat zone –convinced these Iraqis that Americans are very different people from what they had been led to believe. They finally figured out that the Americans truly want to help and are not there to oppress them or steal from them. And the Americans slowly learned how Iraqi culture works and how to blend in rather than barge in.

“We hand out care packages from the U.S. to Iraqis now that the area has been cleared of terrorists,” one Marine told me. “When we tell them that some of these packages aren’t from the military or the government, that they were donated by average American citizens in places like Kansas, people choke up and sometimes even cry. They just can’t comprehend it. It is so different from the lies they were told about us and how we’re supposed to be evil.”

The literacy class for women and girls may have been cancelled, but the local would-be students wanted me to take pictures of them at their desks. So the classroom was opened and they sat in their seats for staged photos. We had no language in common. It was just obvious, from their beckoning hand gestures, what they wanted me to do. They seemed to be proud that they were learning to read, and that women and girls were allowed to be schooled again now that Al Qaeda is gone."

 

"Iraqi children may know only a handful of words in English, but mister and picture are two of them. Every kid in Iraq demands to be photographed. I heard “Mister, Mister, Picture Picture!” literally hundreds of times whenever I stepped into the streets of Ramadi. Some kids would say “Mister, Mister, Picture, Picture,” dozens of times all by themselves."

 

"Back at the Joint Security Station – a large rented house where Iraqi and American Soldiers live side by side and keep tabs on a small piece of the city – the Iraqis taught Arabic to the Americans. The Americans taught English to the Iraqis. The Iraqis gently helped the Americans with their Arabic accents and used basic books as learning tools where words were spelled out in both Arabic and Latin alphabets. The Soldiers and Marines were learning basic Arabic, what you would expect to learn in an Arabic 101 class at most. The Iraqis were a little bit farther along in their English, but not much.

The Iraqis made tea for Americans. The Americans made coffee for Iraqis."

 

"I started to prepare an MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) for myself – Chicken Tetrazzini, which somehow tastes the least processed of all the MRE options – and flipped through an old issue of Air and Space magazine that Lieutenant Hightower had fished out of desk for me.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no,” an Iraqi Soldier said to me when he saw what I was doing. “You eat Iraqi food,” he said. “MRE food no good.”

“It’s fine,” I said. “I don’t mind.”

“No!” he said. “We give you Iraqi food. Come with me.”

An Iraqi cook had prepared a delicious meal of barbecued chicken and rice with a spicy red sauce I had never eaten before. The Iraqi was right. It was much better than MRE food."

 

"One American soldier told me about a time he was having tea in a friendly Iraqi civilian’s house.

“It’s hot today,” said the Iraqi, “but at least you have your air conditioner on.”

“What do you mean?” said the Soldier.

“Your air conditioner,” the Iraqi said and pointed at the Soldier’s bulky body armor.

The Soldier laughed out loud.

“That’s body armor,” he said. “Not an air conditioner!”

“Come on,” the Iraqi said. “We all know those are air conditioners.”

The Soldier took off his body armor and handed it to the Iraqi. “Here,” he said. “Put it on and see for yourself.”

The Iraqi donned the armor and suddenly felt even hotter.

“Hmm,” he said. “It is pretty hot. But I’m sure it will get cold after a while.”

 

If you think I’ve published all the good stuff in this report, don’t worry.  Michael Totten's full two-part story ate up 75 pages (!) of space on my word processing program.  Believe me, it's loaded.  The photos are not to be missed. 

Go to the site.  Enjoy the read.  Learn what you’d never learn about the war in Iraq from the MSM and their allies, the Evil Left.   Leave comments and money.  Tell them Hugh Hewitt and I sent you.

The question was asked over and over again after the September 11 attacks: Why do they hate us?

 

The answer is the essence of brutal simplicity: Because America is in their way.  And we will stay in their way until they are all defeated and acknowledge America is the rightful leader of the world.

 

Consider some of the things George Bush told the Legionnaires yesterday [Bush pull quotes are in italics].

 

We meet today at a critical time for our country. America is engaged in a great ideological struggle -- fighting Islamic extremists across the globe.

 

Exactly so.  Notice that Bush is no longer shying away from calling them what they are—Islamic extremists.  A good enough approximation to our favorite denotation for those terrorists: Islamofascists.

 

Perhaps the most important duty that Legion members undertake is to serve as living reminders that a great country has great responsibilities. Once again, America finds itself a nation at war. Once again, we're called to assume the mantle of global leadership.

 

Note to Evil Leftists and pacifistic, isolationist libertarians: Bush knows what Spiderman knows.  With great power goes great responsibility.  Technology binds the world together in ways unimagined by our forebears, those who believed America could withhold herself from the world and bear no world responsibilities.  September 11 was a brutal reminder of the fact that the world is always with us, so we must always be with the world.

 

Many people in this country are asking whether the fight underway today is worth it. This is not the first time Americans have asked that question. We always enter wars reluctantly -- yet we have fought whenever dangers came. We fought when turmoil in Europe threatened to shroud the world in darkness. America sent its military to fight two bitter and bloody conflicts -- we did what we had to do to get the job done. We fought when powers in Asia attacked our country and our allies. We sent Americans to restore the peace -- and we did what we had to do to get the job done. And we responded when radicals and extremists attacked our homeland in the first ideological war of the 21st century. We toppled two regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that gave harbor to terrorists, defied the international community, and threatened the security of our nation. And now we're working to help build free and secure societies in their place -- and like the past, we will do what we have to do to get the job done.

 

One of my favorite jokes was told by an Israeli.  It seems that the ten-year-olds in history class were learning about the time nearly 2,000 years ago when the Second Temple was destroyed by Rome.  The teacher told them of the dispositions of the various powers in the region and their relationships with Israel in the manner in which an American teacher would discuss World War II.  One little boy looked more and more puzzled as the teacher talked.  Finally, the teacher stopped and asked the boy what troubled him.

 

“But which side were the Americans on?”

 

American power is ubiquitous in the world.  So much so, that a little Israeli boy might actually assume that we had been around back then, shaping the world of the first century A.D!  We are so tightly intertwined with the peoples of the world that they automatically assume that we will be there in any conflict.  And in a way, they are right.  The only question they ask is which side we will be on.

 

I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world. Extremists of all strains would be emboldened by the knowledge that they forced America to retreat. Terrorists could have more safe havens to conduct attacks on Americans and our friends and allies. Iran could conclude that we were weak -- and could not stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. And once Iran had nuclear weapons, it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

 

There are no withdrawal options available to us anymore.  The War on Terrorism is not like the Mexican American War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I or II, after which America disbanded its armies and sent its men home.  It is more like the Cold War, during which our armies stood guard year after year, decade after decade, until our Communist enemies imploded and crumbled.

 

Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.

 

If there is any headline news embedded in Bush’s speech, this paragraph holds it.  Bush just served notice to Iran’s regime: Knock it off or we will knock you off.

 

Unfortunately, some who had complained about a lack of security in Iraq are now attempting to change the terms of the debate. Their argument used to be that security was bad, so the surge has failed. Now their argument seems to be security is better, so the surge has failed. They disregard the political advances on the local level, and instead change -- charge that the slow pace of legislative progress on the national level proves our strategy has not worked. This argument gets it backwards. Improving security is the precondition for making gains in other areas.

 

Will Americans follow this Evil Leftist recipe for guaranteed failure?  No.  We will not.  The Evil Left will twist any argument on Iraq to suit itself and its anti-American aims.  We will not cooperate with them in any way.

 

The American people know how difficult democracy can be. Our own country has an advanced and sophisticated political system in place. Yet even we can't pass a budget on time -- and we've had 200 years of practice.

 

This neat skewering of the inadequacies of the Democrat-controlled Congress makes the point painfully obvious on how difficult establishing democracy in a war-torn, brutalized Iraq really is.

 

Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi leaders are dealing with the issues far more controversial and complicated, and they are trying to do it all at once, after decades of a brutal dictatorship. Iraq's leaders aren't perfect. But they were elected by their people. They want what we want -- a free Iraq that fights terrorists instead of harboring them. And leaders in Washington need to look for ways to help our Iraqi allies succeed -- not excuses for abandoning them.

 

And that’s just what the arguments offered by Evil Leftists are—excuses.

 

The challenge is before us -- the challenge before us is hard, but America can meet it. And the conflict has come at a cost, on behalf of a cause that is right and essential to the American people. It's a noble cause. It is a just cause. It is a necessary cause. I wouldn't have asked the young men and women of our military to go in harm's way if I didn't think success in Iraq was necessary for the security of the United States of America. I know it can be difficult to see sometimes, but what happens on the streets of Baghdad and in the neighborhoods of Anbar has a direct impact on the safety of Americans here at home. And that is why we're in this fight. And that's why we'll stay in the fight, and that is why we're going to win this fight.

 

Enough said.

Transcript of Bush's speech

 

Just after the sixth anniversary of September 11, the Evil Leftist group, ANSWER, will organize a protest against the Iraq War in Washington, DC.  A Gathering of Eagles is planning to counter their protest, just as they did last spring.  Which was a highly impressive counter-protest, I might add.

And now, a few words from Michelle Malkin:

 

Earlier this year, I reported on a new, nonpartisan movement that arose to challenge the surrender lobby. On a bitter cold weekend in March, the Gathering of Eagles brought together veterans, families of active-duty servicemen and servicewomen, Rolling Thunder members, military bloggers and their grass-roots supporters to raise their pro-troops, pro-mission voices. I interviewed Eagles who flew in from San Francisco, rode motorcycles south from Georgia, drove all night from Boston, and trekked in caravans from coast to coast to answer ANSWER. At the crack of dawn, facing biting winds and contemptuous taunts, tens of thousands of Eagles stood guard over war memorials threatened by anti-war anarchists and lined the streets where bongo drum-beating retreatists marched.

 

The Gathering of Eagles turnout was unprecedented. The Cindy Sheehanistas and socialist rabble-rousers had never been met and matched with such force. Now, the Eagles are organizing a return to Washington at a historic moment in the global war against jihad. Gen. David Petraeus, top commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are expected to testify before the Senate on Sept. 11. Yes, that Sept. 11. Four days later, Sept. 15, is the deadline for the president to submit reports to Congress on how Iraq is meeting benchmarks for progress since the troop surge was announced in January.

 

Check Michelle Malkin’s latest column on the Eagles at Townhall.com:

 

If you can’t be there, support them financially or by spreading the word to your fellow bloggers, friends, family, etc.

 

For further information on this fine organization, check this link:

 

http://gatheringofeagles.org/

 

No, not THAT John Kennedy:

 

"After months of speculation about a party switch, state Treasurer John Kennedy announced Monday that he is running for re-election this fall as a Republican, after serving two terms as a Democrat.

 

"Kennedy's re-election campaign announced the switch in an email. In it, Kennedy said he spent more than a year grappling with the decision — though the expectation of a change was heightened this summer when Kennedy met with then-White House political strategist Karl Rove and state GOP leaders.

 

"I have concluded that the Republican Party is the party that best reflects my values today," Kennedy said.

 

"During Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco's administration, Kennedy had grown at odds with his party, getting into disagreements with the governor and one of the party's power brokers, Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom.

 

"For the past several years, it has increasingly been the case that those public servants who have embraced my ideas and my philosophy of trying new approaches are primarily Republicans," Kennedy said in the e-mail."

Nola.com

Considering the utterly slip-shod infrastructure maintenance record of the wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Democratic Party aka Louisiana, not to mention its well-deserved reputation for corruption, I’d say it’s high time to let a Republican John Kennedy have a crack at management.

 

 

And while I’m on the subject: It’s the second anniversary of the beginning of Hurricane Katrina’s attack upon the Mainland.  You remember that hurricane.  The one the Dems blamed on President Bush and FEMA.  No mention of levees left weakened by LOCAL administrators and committee members who spent levee-reinforcement moneys on such luxuries as parks and golf courses.  No mention of Governor Blanco refusing to call up the National Guard until she got her focus group inspired talking points in order.

 

Nicholas Lemann, in a comment posted on September 19, 2005 in The New Yorker's "The Talk of the Town," lamented the federal government's failure to appreciate Louisiana's incompetence BEFORE Hurricane Katrina:

The Bush Administration realized after the storm what it should have realized before it: that the state and local authorities in Louisiana were not going to be able to handle the hurricane's aftermath effectively. Apparently, the Administration tried to persuade the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, to issue an official request that the federal government take control of the Louisiana National Guard and the New Orleans police, but she refused, out of pride or mistrust or a desire to maintain some degree of control. Then the Administration considered sending active-duty federal troops to New Orleans to do what the National Guard and the police could not — make the streets and the evacuation centers safe and decent — and decided not to. Whatever its failings before the hurricane hit, the federal government could have greatly lessened the disaster if it had acted immediately afterward as a direct enforcer of the law. People suffered and died because it did not.

RenewAmerica.us

Newsbusters.org

 

"In the past four years, the Orleans Levee Board has built up its arsenal. The additional defenses are so critical that Levee Commissioners marched into Congress and brought back almost $60 million to help pay for protection," the pamphlet declared. "The most ambitious flood-fighting plan in generations was drafted. An unprecedented $140 million building campaign launched 41 projects."

The levee board promised Times-Picayune readers that the "few manageable gaps" in the walls protecting the city from Mother Nature's waters "will be sealed within four years (1999) completing our circle of protection."

But less than a year later, that same levee board was denied the authority to refinance its debts. Legislative Auditor Dan Kyle "repeatedly faulted the Levee Board for the way it awards contracts, spends money and ignores public bid laws," according to the Times-Picayune. The newspaper quoted Kyle as saying that the board was near bankruptcy and should not be allowed to refinance any bonds, or issue new ones, until it submitted