General Says His Iraq Envoy Job Was Rescinded - NYTimes.com

General Says His Iraq Envoy Job Was Rescinded - NYTimes.com:

What a shameful way to treat a general who was told that he all but had the job as ambassador to Iraq. We are not told who made the decision, but if Hillary and Joe accepted him, it must have been the President or one of his top aides who changed the decision. It smacks of Rahm Immanuel, who we are told by the media, is a foul-mouthed and difficult person. Or was it Obama himself?

"General Zinni said he met for more than an hour with Mrs. Clinton, discussing a wide range of Iraq issues with her; James B. Steinberg, one of her two appointed deputy secretaries; and William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs.

“She thanked me for taking this, and we went over what needed to be done,” General Zinni said. “She turned to Steinberg and Burns and said: ‘Let’s get the paperwork moving. We’ve got to move on this.’ ”

The next day, General Zinni said, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called to thank him for taking the job.

But that was the last word on Iraq that General Zinni said he heard from the administration.

The call he was told to expect from Mr. Burns never came, General Zinni said, and when he called each day to check on his status, he said, Mr. Burns sounded increasingly vague.

With decisions to make on withdrawing from corporate boards and recruiting aides, General Zinni said he called General Jones on Monday.

General Jones broke the news: “It’s going to be Chris Hill,” General Zinni said he was told."

“As a sorry offer to placate me, they offered ambassador to Saudi,” he said in a separate e-mail message, referring to Saudi Arabia. “I told them to stick it where the sun don’t shine.”

Obama's energy pick endorses nukes, clean coal | Politics and Law - CNET News

Obama's energy pick endorses nukes, clean coal | Politics and Law - CNET News


Dr. Chu will not be embraced by some rabid greenies who believe the forecast for energy's future is all windy and sunny. He makes sense with his initial remarks. There's no question that efficiency will be the low-hanging fruit and that coal and nuclear will be with us for a very long time.

On Vermont's nuclear front, the Legislature should quickly decide the fate of Vermont Yankee. Their best bet would be to repaeal the authority thay have previously given themselves to decide VY's fate. They would be better served and off the hook by leaving the decision where it belongs...with the NRC and the Public Service Board.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Winning Isn't News

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Winning Isn't News

Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Let's choose to believe this account (July 2008) that we are winning/have won in Iraq. It really is a symptom of the onerous bias of the liberal media in the U.S. that they fail to report it. They are so infatuated with the Obama thing and the recession that the Iraq war dropped off their radar screen.

Here are some of the reasons they would give for not fully reporting this:

• The recession is absolutely the biggest news story now.
• The Obama victory is so important that we must cover it fully (ad nauseum).
• Iraq is just not news anymore. (I wonder how many 'embedded' reporters are still there [story below reports NONE]?)
• From the publishers: we are focused on our financial difficulties...we can't afford to spread our news staff too thin.
• Americans aren't interested in the Iraq war anymore.

One reason they wouldn't give is:

• Bush did the right thing in approving the 'surge.' Obama can't bring himself to say it because he opposed it and ...well, 'we' love Obama and hate Bush. To give Bush credit, well, it's just not in 'our' repertoire.

Today's (12/29/08) New York Times has this story on the subject. Opening paragraphs below.

TV News Winds Down Operations on Iraq War

By BRIAN STELTER

Published: December 28, 2008

Quietly, as the United States presidential election and its aftermath have dominated the news, America’s three broadcast network news divisions have stopped sending full-time correspondents to Iraq.

NBC

Richard Engel, a top correspondent for NBC, is rotating in and out of Baghdad.

“The war has gone on longer than a lot of news organizations’ ability or appetite to cover it,” said Jane Arraf, a former Baghdad bureau chief for CNN who has remained in Iraq as a contract reporter for The Christian Science Monitor.

Joseph Angotti, a former vice president of NBC News, said he could not recall any other time when all three major broadcast networks lacked correspondents in an active war zone that involved United States forces.

Except, of course, in Afghanistan, where about 30,000 Americans are stationed, and where until recently no American television network, broadcast or cable, maintained a full-time bureau.

Obama Fuels Debate on Iraq Pullout With Remarks - NYTimes.com

Obama Fuels Debate on Iraq Pullout With Remarks - NYTimes.com

It is almost comical, but sad, that the Times reporter goes to great lengths trying to nuance what is clearly becoming another Obama flip-flop, this time on the Iraq war. While campaigning for the Democratic nomination he was "the" anti-war candidate. End the war and bring the troops home in 16 months was the mantra when it suited him politically. He was obviously pandering to people. Perhaps his nickname should be the 'Pandering Flip-Flopper.'

The Democrats, including Obama, have consistently refused to acknowledge that significant progress has been made in Iraq by our military (for our troops and their leaders I am thankful) and the 'surge' strategy by any measure must be judged successful. But the Democrats are invested in defeat, it seems, because that suits their political agenda. How is it that any thinking voter cannot see this obvious political pandering by Obama. Change is his mantra, but flip-flop is his demonstrated style.

Even the Times editorial writers are not happy with the Pandering Flip-Flopper. Today they had this to say:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Another story in the Times describes his flip-flop on the FISA surveillance issue. He now suppoerts the proposed FISA bill including a provision that would grant telecom companies immunity for their role in post-9/11 surveillance activities. I support immunity, but thousands of his supporters do not and are unhappy with Obama's flip-flop on that issue, too. Character matters!

I have said that I am not satisfied with the choices we are presented for Presidential candidates this year. But of the two, Obama is the one I would see as worse for our country. The ability to inspire via syrupy rhetoric is important, but I prefer substance and character. He, unlike McCain, has shown me neither.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Al-Qaeda in Iraq 'reduced by 75%'

While the road ahead in Iraq is long and arduous, the BBC reports that the 'surge' with General Petraeus' leadership has apparently reduced the level of violence and severely limited Al Qaeda's influence. Why isn't the American media reporting the same good news. Is it because they see this positive result as bad for the Democrats?

I expect little credit will be given to Bush for this turn of events, but the improvement, thanks to our military, cannot be denied. Now, the harder task is for the politicians and the State Department to move the Iraqis toward resolution of as many of their differences as possible.

"The BBC's Jo Floto in Baghdad says there are a number of other factors behind the security gains, such as a six-month ceasefire announced in August by the Mehdi Army militia of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr.

But perhaps most crucial, says our correspondent, has been the emergence of Sunni militias who once fought the Americans and the Iraqi government but are now fighting al-Qaeda.

In his year-end review for media, Gen Petraeus said US figures
showed the number of overall attacks had fallen by 60% since June."

Bin laden's September Videotape

If you've never read the rantings of Bin Laden (I hadn't), he will tell you that the Democrats have failed to stop the war in Iraq because they have been corrupted by large corporations. He opines that capitalism is the root of all evil and democracy is just a way for big corporations to exploit people and globalism is the present phase of that which is ruining the world via global warming. Funny, though, he never mentions China or India and their thriving capitalism.

Where was Bin Laden when the Marxists were spouting and spreading their 'workers of the world unite' and Communist ideology? They could have used him.

If there be any doubt in your mind that this man is dead set to eliminate us unless we reject democracy and capitalism and turn to Islam, read his speech. The translation is a bit rough in spots, but you won't have any problem getting his drift.

American Thinker: Iraq as Qaeda Bait

I have long maintained that this theory of Iraq as "Qaeda bait" is valid. Radical Islamists flock like flies to an opportunity to fight jihad against Americans. There are only two places for them to do it, Iraq and Afghanistan, between which Iran is squeezed. Should push come to shove, we have the capacity to hit Iran hard or surgically as the case may be if they get too close to a nuke.

Please Democrats and MoveOn.org, tell me what your strategy is in this region of the world. How would you fight the terror war and kill jihadists? Or would you 'negotiate' with them? I have yet to hear a Democrat alternative.

Empty Heads & Blind Eyes at the NY Times

Given this editorial and the many that preceded it, I have come to believe that The NY Times editorialists are nothing more than mouthpieces for MoveOn.org.(Yesterday's ad in the New York Times was disgraceful and shows MoveOn.org's true colors).

If the Democrat leadership agrees with these left-wing loonies, they deserve to be painted with the same brush. If they don't, they should say so.

I wish that we could bring our military home tomorrow, too, but without a rational plan for the Middle East, that would be strategic folly endangering our national security. If/When (if ever) the "get out now" crowd presents realistic strategic policy alternatives, I'm willing to listen to them.

This assessment by General Petraeus is not what the loonies want to hear.

"The situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult,
and sometimes downright frustrating. I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, although doing so will be neither quick nor easy."

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times

So, we learn from this article that "get out of Iraq now" is really a slogan to keep the radical left fringe fired up and to raise political campaign dollars. It's all rhetoric. The Democrats have been disingenuous in demanding that we leave Iraq now because any thinking person understands the risks and consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq or that region.

One can argue that we should not have gone there in force, but that argument is as hollow as saying that Hussein's repressive regime was good for the region because it kept 'order' by providing Sunni dominance over the Shia and all sorts of totalitarian atrocities. Because Hussein had corrupted the U.N. by bribing leaders with his oil money, it was clear the U.N. was incapable of any action to enforce its resolutions, absent the Coalition invasion.

Apparently Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are the only 'true believers.' The decision to run against Pelosi exemplifies her irrationality after her 'poor me' statement to back out of the spotlight. Her political race against Madam Speaker in San Francisco ought to be fun to watch.

A War We Just Might Win - New York Times

A War We Just Might Win - New York Times

It's a miracle that the NY Times, more and more the mouthpiece of the Democrats, would even publish this report because it's so favorable to the present situation in Iraq. The two Brookings Institution researchers/analysts paint a brighter picture than the politicians would have us believe. Good strategy implemented by good people and sound leadership can make a huge positive change.

This comment sums it up:

"VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

David Brooks on the Democrat Iraq Dilemma

"The Democratic leaders don’t want to be for immediate withdrawal because it might alienate the centrists, and they don’t want to see out the surge because that would alienate the base. What they want to do is be against Bush without accepting responsibility for any real policy, so they have concocted a vaporous policy of distant withdrawal that is divorced from realities on the ground.

Say what you will about President Bush, when he thinks a policy is right, like the surge, he supports it, even if it’s going to be unpopular. The Democratic leaders, accustomed to the irresponsibility of opposition, show no such guts."

This excerpt from David Brooks' column today reveals the Democrat dilemma on Iraq. Without a viable policy alternative, they cannot be taken seriously. Their posturing is seen as pure politics. They have put that ahead of the national interest. Sad, but not unexpected. They will wish they had not put themselves in this position.