Idiot elite media

Hard not to notice the screaming headline, Barack Obama is warned to beware of a ‘huge threat’ from al-Qaeda. The article, beyond the alarmist lede graf, goes on to say pretty much -- never mind. It's probably not that real. "Some people" are just worried about it. Mostly unnamed Bush lackeys.

But beyond the nothing really there aspect, why the hell are they warning Obama about it? There's nothing he can do unless Bush does the noble thing and resigns immediately so Obama could take over sooner. Otherwise, it's still The Deciderer's problem. Shouldn't they be warning Mr. Mission Accomplished?

[More posts daily at The Detroit News.]

On the side a al Qaeda?

by Capt. Fogg

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence tells us that al Qaeda is losing favor with Muslims around the world. It's only a matter of time until the neocons take credit and tell all of the losers and surrender monkeys out there that it was the success of the surge and that they are vindicated. Of course the key fact is ignored that what the press calls the "Muslim world" seems to have been more sympathetic to us than they are now until George tried to impress the innocent bystanders by blowing Iraq to halfway to hell; women, children, house cats and all.

The idea that sectarian war in Iraq was the doing of hordes of invaders from al Qaeda (or sometimes Iran as befits the story of the day) and not from Islamic history itself with the help of the European people who decided Iraq should be one country and George Bush who just wanted to blow something up, still stocks the neocon shelves. It's still on sale and McConnells' reassurance advertises that.

"So that is another sign for us that the billion Muslims that practice their faith as good citizens are not for Al-Qaeda and that it's the extremist branch"

I have a feeling that was more so back when the Bush mafia was still sitting in a circle in some basement room playing with their privates and plotting war. I have a feeling that the "Billion Muslims" never supported any slaughter of the innocents in the first place, either the three thousand in New York or the better part of a million in Iraq, not to speak of the 4 million destitute and homeless. I have a feeling that all the support it ever had before Baghdad was shocked and awed came from Bush's oil buddies.

I just hope that come November the wholesale repudiation of Bush and his Napoleonic greed will show the world that the bulk of our 300 million people are good citizens who do not support the extremist branch still represented so forcefully and well by the Republican Party.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Okay then - the surge did work

By Libby

You want good news about Iraq, here's some great news.

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

Alrighty then. Let's declare victory and get the hell out of Baghdad. But wait -- naysayers in the peanut gallery. If we win too soon, it will interfere with the long term occupation the White House prefers to further its political agenda.

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past.

Yeah. We wouldn't want people connecting the dots or doing anything like noticing the truth about the occupation. It kind of kills the fearmongering if we admit we routed AQ in Iraq. The neo-cons would have to come up with a whole new justification to stay and hell, they're running out of reasons. Besides, somebody has to protect Hunt Oil's interests in the Kurd contracts they just signed.

Freedom's just another word

by Capt. Fogg

It's to the point where every time I see another picture of those damned smoking towers I know somebody's going to lie to me and last night was no exception.

"They attacked us!"

says the legless man in camouflage; The ad run during NBC Nightly News showed that same old video as though he wasn't talking about two disparate and essentially unrelated "they's." A shadowy organization calling themselves Freedoms Watch is shamelessly promoting the Big Lie that Saddam Hussein attacked New York and with the smug, condescending attitude of a second grade school teacher talking to small children about keeping order in the lunchroom.

If we pull out now, the sacrifice will have been in vain, says the pathetic victim of the Bush family vendetta. Well here's the only point on which I agree since it was all in vain from the start. If I don't keep trying to turn lead into gold, I will never turn lead into gold. That's logically true, of course, but a misleading tautology. I won't turn lead into gold no matter what I do.

So what the hell is he really selling with the crude sophistry and fatuous fallacies? Nobody goes to the trouble of creating false equivalences and forging them into truth by relentless hammering on the anvil of American ear drums unless there's something to be gained by it. Freedom's Watch doesn't hide their mission, although they keep their identity and funding out of sight. Their web site is festooned with flags and eagles and tawdry tokens of cheap souvenir patriotism and its mission statement is as gaudy and cliché as one would expect from any carnival barker:

Our mission is to ensure a strong national defense and a powerful fight against terror, especially in Iraq.

National defense being deceitfully defined, of course, as committing all your assets in an attack on and occupation of a non-threatening nation. National defense is using those troops as hostages in an imperial endeavor. But terror is fear, not a country and sorry to say, I'm not afraid much less terrified, so for my part the question is moot.

Our group will give a voice to those who believe that victory is America's only choice.

Which begs the question the answer to which has been accepted by most rational people including the Generals. The question is "what is victory for us in someone else's civil war" and the answer is that military victory is not a concept that applies here. Dealing with the fact that hating America to death is growing like an epidemic that grows faster every time we kill someone in a country that did not threaten us or attack us does not include the prolonged military occupation of Iraq. Those who believe, in this case, are most likely to be those who profit.

Those who want to quit while victory is possible have dominated the public debate about terror and Iraq since the 2004 election.

But that's not too surprising because Victory is undefinable, occupation unsustainable and what seems to be the largest possible majority in America wants out of it -- and they want out because they believe "victory" is not possible. There is in fact no debate about Iraq and terrorism. Iraq was never a supporter of international terrorism. Those countries who supported al Qaeda are being called allies.

For those who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming.

Yes, this is a John Wayne movie and will end nicely as the credits roll on the silver screen. Don't worry about it. Strength means constant war, doesn't it? Strong people are always picking fights.

Our goal, as we await General Petraeus' report, is to make sure our elected leaders do not abandon our nation's mission in Iraq and that they do not cave in to the demands of those who want to cut and run.

After all, it's not their job to execute the will of their constituents, is it? It's what the nameless and wealthy warmongers and plutocrat profiteers want that should matter to them. It's also rather suspicious that they seem to know what General Petraeus' report contains, but of course we know the source of all this, don't we?

There's no fallacy or misstatement there that hasn't been beaten to death, but human nature being what it is, repetition wipes away refutation and lies become history. Click on the about us link at Freedoms watch and you won't find anything about them other than an assertion that they are legal and are asking for money, as though the people who fund it haven't made so much money from this war that they don't need your contributions. What they really want is your freedom, and your future and the blood of your children.

Cross posted at Human Voices

They Don't Hate Us For Our Freedoms

Slate Magazine has an interesting article about the different books that have been published concerning the writings and grievances of Muslim terrorists. Now this is fairly interesting and we should spend some time identifying our enemy's grievances if for no other reason than discovering weaknesses that can be exploited.

Reza Aslan tries to understand and explain why they hate us.

Americans have been asking this question for nearly six years now, and for six years President Bush and his accomplices have been offering the same tired response: "They hate us for our freedoms." With every passing year, that answer becomes less convincing.

Well, this is a simple leader offering sound bite explanations to a simple people. Overly harsh? I don't think so, after all the media ate it up and look how simple they are.

I'm not going to get into this article too much, but I encourage you to read it. It's interesting, but flawed. The reason is that I'm an American and I don't so much as give a big damn what this group of criminals think about anything. I don't care why they're upset, but I have a question for them. Why are you mad at us? Is it for the easy and abundant media exposure?

What I don't understand is why this group of predominantly Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis aren't fighting in their own countries to bring about change. Could it be that they are just thugs and criminals, murderers and misfits? If they keep this up all they're are going to wind up is dead. Sooner or later the man who has done more for their efforts than anyone, George Bush, will be out of office and the next president may actually have a clue about what to do with these people. George Bush hasn't intentionally done anything to aid these criminals, he's just in over his head, a no-where man, living in his no-where land, etc., etc.

In the end, this is the most important lesson to be learned from these writings. Because, if we are truly locked in an ideological war, as the president keeps reminding us, then our greatest weapons are our words. And thus far, instead of fighting this war on our terms, we have been fighting it on al-Qaida's.

Don't believe me? Ask Bin Laden:

Bush left no room for doubts or media opinion. He stated clearly that this war is a Crusader war. He said this in front of the whole world so as to emphasize this fact. … When Bush says that, they try to cover up for him, then he said he didn't mean it. He said, 'crusade.' Bush divided the world into two: 'either with us or with terrorism' … The odd thing about this is that he has taken the words right out of our mouths.

Odd, indeed.

Oh yes, Mr. Bush has helped them, greatly, but what he has done that is even more damaging is that he has made us more like them. He ignores international treaties like the Geneva Convention. He has authorized and encouraged torture. He has spied on Americans and imprisoned them without habeas corpus. He has authorized the international transport of prisoners so that they could be secretly imprisoned and tortured. The list goes on and on.

To defeat these monsters we must be true to ourselves and live up to our heritage and our beliefs. We should be trying to make the world more like us, or the way we used to be before the non-leadership of the Bush administration made us into something that we are truly not.

We're The United States of America and it's time we started acting like it.

Jim Martin

AQ head honcho is either dead or alive

By Libby

Surprisingly, it's the right leaning blogs that are expressing the skepticism this morning on the purported death of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the alleged leader of the AQ in Iraq and certainly the point is well taken that Maliki's government, who made the announcement, does not have a good track record for reliable reports on events of this nature.

In fact one wonders what the point of the announcement was at all, since they admit it's unconfirmed. Even the White House isn't trying to make hay with this one. And even if it's true, what does it mean in the greater scheme of the Iraqi sectarian conflict? Abu Aardvark gets it right on that point I think.

If it is true, it would be great in terms of getting rid of someone responsible for a lot of the worst outrages in Iraq. Politically, however, the most likely effect will be similar to the Zarqawi hit. Like Zarqawi, Masri has been increasingly divisive in the insurgency . . . If he’s gone, it may be exactly what the insurgency factions need to repair their frayed ties and to refocus on fighting the American occupation rather than each other.

Hardly what I consider a sign of progress. It seems to me that the WOT and war on some drugs have a lot in common. No matter how many individual players the government takes out, someone will always rise to fill in the new employment opening and the new guy is likely to be worse than the old one.