A NEW LOW IN MONDAY QUARTERBACKING JOURNALISM

This morning as I ritually do every day. I was perusing web sites for interesting and sometimes controversial stories as fodder for my daily blog.
It didn't take long for me to find a New York resident opining on how President Bush could salvage the mess he has made in Iraq.
A Mr. Dan Friedman wrote a piece for "The American Thinker" that I believe is worthy of my rebuttal. The following is an excerpt from today's published opinion of Mr. Friedman.
Instead of putting first things first, namely, mounting an occupation modeled on our WW II successes in Germany and Japan, then sealing Iraq's borders, declaring martial law, preparing for a long-term American regency, restricting movement within the country, and disarming the entire populace, Mr. Bush flew off-course. He parachuted in battalions of bureaucrats and constitutional lawyers, staking all on a rapid handover of power to his Iraqi designees and delivering "democracy" to an ancient people with no corresponding word in its language. In a part of the world where theology is the motive force, and the name of the only religion translates to "submit" in English, the president's jejune goodwill and misplaced egalitarianism signaled a willingness to replace a hard fist with an open hand. And that's when the bad guys in the Islamic world, conditioned by the laws of war found in their Quran, looked at each other in utter disbelief and shouted with glee, "last one to Iraq is a rotten egg!"
A well-executed allied occupation would have blunted the rise of today's lethal insurgency, kept al Qaeda, Iran and Syria on the sidelines, and cost far fewer Americans (and Iraqis) their lives. Also, ironically, it would have given Bush's political goals in Iraq a better chance to be realized than the remote possibility which exists for them now.
That's all 20-20 hindsight, sure, but it never hurts to know how we got from there to here -- especially when it exposes a dangerously naïve institutional mindset that's still in place across the entire political spectrum. One that's balefully clueless about the nature of the Islamic enemy we're still battling within a struggle that's going to take many more difficult years to win. That's why it must be noted that virtually none of the "public intellectuals" on the right have owned up to the mistakes the administration has made in Iraq, and even fewer have owned up to their own benighted prognostications and Pollyannaish advice. There are exceptions - George Will is one.
For the most part, though, the Krauthammers and the Podhoretzes of this world are content to blame the media, the frenzied Left and the Democratically-controlled Congress for the avoidable problems we are facing in Iraq. But those are the effects, not the causes, of the President's previous failures. At the outset, the media was gung-ho, begging to be "embedded" and ride shotgun with our troops, the Left is always in a frenzy, and it was his conduct of the war that cost Bush the Congress in '06.
Now for the good news. All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours - the time it will take to destroy Iran's fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.
Let's look downstream the day after and observe how the world has changed.
First and foremost, there's this prospective fait accompli -- and it changes everything. The Iranians are no longer a nuclear threat, and won't be again for at least another decade, and even that assumes the strategic and diplomatic situation reverts to the status quo ante and they'll just be able to pick up and rebuild as they would after an earthquake. Not possible.
The logic is so flawed that I will not be able to address all points in this piece of tripe.

But I will begin with the premise he makes about the willing media that he claims was behind the President from the beginning of the war. He claims that because the media asked( demand in fact) to embed journalists in the Iraq war zone show their commitment to the War. Stuff and nonsense at the very least!

Ever since Vietnam the media has used the "embedded Journalists" to highlight all the negatives about he war. Particularly the deaths of our troops and the "atrocities caused by the troops against Iraq populace. Negative Journalism is the hallmark of the coverage spoon fed to the American public in a dedicated trust to destroy the President and the war effort since the Iraqi Republican Guards were defeated.

His answer to how we win in Iraq is to destroy the Iranian nuclear supply line using stealth bombers and with "stand off weapons".I suppose he means missiles fired from ships and submarines into the nuclear facility.

Yes, massive bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities might delay or even stop their production of nuclear arms, but doesn't he realize that by the time President Bush attacks Iran the weapons would have already been moved as were the "WMD" that Saddam had before we telegraphed our intentions to invade Iraq via the media and the UN numerous delays before we decided to go it alone with only token help from our so called allies?

The second and probably most ridiculous premise is that we should have occupied Iraq as we did Japan and Germany in World War II. The situation in Japan and Germany at the time of occupation was one of complete devastation caused by nuclear bobs in Japan and both day and night bombing in both Countries that left them in rubble. It is easy to occupy a country that has been devastated by incessant bombing. But would today's American bleeding heart Liberals have stood by silently and supportive of such an effort? I strongly believe they would not!

Thirdly, the premise that a single or multiple strike on Iran's nuclear plants would end their program is speculative at best. They have had years to dig deep into the Iranian earth to bury their facilities for fabrication of nuclear devices that have been assisted in their construction by both Russia and China. To the point that they may be impregnable without entering the with ground forces and actually setting explosive charges to destroy what ever is found inside.

Lastly, Mr. Friedman excoriates the "right wing radicals" for not ever admitting that mistakes were made in the planning and execution of the war in Iraq by the Bush Administration.

Obviously this pea brain has never done any research on the tragic consequences of World War II. Market Garden, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge,Tarawa and the D-Day invasion were all well thought out, but in each case something unforeseen happened and thousands of soldiers and marines died as a result. Wars are not fought like "board Games", and the best plans do fail. The ability to sustain the war effort with the complete backing of the American people and the media does help.President Bush and the troops have had very little of this. The greed for power and control of the government has made the media and the Democrat party complicit in OUR enemies fight against our valiant troops!

MOVEon.org goes to the gutter once again

Despite the fact that al Qaeda leadership has bragged about their successful destruction of New York's Twin Towers. Hateful, and vicious people bankrolling the Left continues to convince the American people that President Bush and the Republicans started the war in Iraq.
I believe a new low in advocacy politics has been reached by the recently released add for television that attacks Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
In the add Move on.org accuses the Republicans of starting the war, and then attacks the leadership for not allowing a bill to be passed that would demand that troops be given periodic "leave" from the war zone.
This bag of vicious dogs must think that we are in a football game or soccer match where if the player gets tired he/she can take a "blow" to refresh and then go back to plating.
Any lame brain who ever experienced combat knows that the soldier airman or marine that is best under fire is the battle tested man/ woman, not the rookie replacement. The death rate for rookie replacements was much higher than that of battle tested troops in every war we have been involved in. Especially Vietnam.
Politics is dirty we all know that, and lying is the way of politicians and their campaign leadership. But calling a decorated hero, as is General Petraeus, "General Betrayal", and calling Senator McConnell and the Republicans "Betrayers of trust" is a new low for the sleaze that is Move on.org and it's ilk!
A famous war movie about the debacle that General Montgomery hatched ,called Market Garden, was "A Bridge To Far".
In this movie their is a dramatic scene when the British stop their tank brigade to have tea, and are excoriated for it by one of the American paratroop leaders for stopping while men are dying up front.
What the Democrats wanted to do is pass a Bill that would play well with the Soccer moms and peacenicks, but would be a new way to help the Islamic terrorists that are killing our brave men and women in Iraq.
It wouldn't help the war effort. But then I believe that is not what they intended to do. The Demoncrats have tried to undermine the war effort for the last two years since they took power in the House and Senate.
Geed for power has no boundaries!

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

The lengthy speech given by Ayman Al Zawarhi, al Qaeda deputy leader under Bin Laden, including the charge that al Qaeda is defeating the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates the negative effect the Democrat party has had on war effort being waged against terrorism.

In their almost traitorous effort to recapture the White House. The leaders in the House and Senate have been proclaiming for many months that either the war is already lost or that our forces are unable to obtain a victory, and the only option is immediate withdrawal.
The remote possibility of victory over the forces of radical Islamic terrorism is not even a considered option by the megalomaniacs hoping to win the control of the complete government in 2008.
The quest for power by the Democrats has been aided by a complicit Media, which has for six years highlighted everything done by or for the Bush Administration as a failure.
People like Congressman Murtha who claim that the genocide that will surely follow an American withdrawal will not be our fault, but the Iraqi's. Is a classic example of the twisted thinking that lead to the murder of unknown thousands, perhaps millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese, in the aftermath of our surrender in Vietnam.
He was a war hero, but he left his conscience in Vietnam it would appear.
If we abandon a fight that we didn't start, but one we entered into after the alQaeda attacked New York on 9/11. We will become an impotent nation that is no longer feared or respected by any tyrant who chooses to attack us.

DO AMERICANS WANT A CONGENITAL LIAR AS PRESIDENT?

Despite the fact that recent polls show Senator Hillary Clinton has a two to one majority of voters likely to vote in 2008 over her nearest opponent Senator Barrack Obama. I don't believe the majority of American voters want the woman who called general Petraeus a liar in these words as written in the New York Times. "It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to believe General Petraeus."

These are the words reserve for a comment about a Harry Potter movie or a novel by James Oliver Rigney,jr., not the decorated hero of the U.S. Army.

Hillary Clinton is the antithesis of a patriot who has the Chutzpah to say she didn't realize that now jailed Chinese billionaire Mr. Hsu was violating any election laws regarding donations to campaign when he gave her campaign $860,000. Nor did she and then President, husband Bill Clinton, bother to check the source of the $50,000 check given to them in the White House by Johnny Chung. It was donated by Chinese Communist military officials!

This already endorsed candidate of "NOW" wants to perpetuate the myth of the sexual disparity of salaries for working women. Even though studies have shown that women doing the same jobs as men are paid equally. Hillary wants more government mandates to "close the "gap".

She is the classical example of an unholy alliance of the New Left Marxism and "grievance feminism". Her political and philosophical leanings were evident when in 1993, soon after Bill Clinton became President she gave the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech she spoke of "remolding our society", and in a recent speech on the campaign trail she stated again that"I will change our Country from day one in office."

She doesn't want to reshaped or mold our Democracy. She wants to develop her version of a Socialistic society by doing away with all of our established system, and by redistributing the wealth from those that have it to those who don't.

Her first attempt to establish socialized medicine was DOA, but this time she proposes a new version of the same old tune at the cost of $110 billion a year. Her plan would mandate that to apply for employment you would have to show your prospective employer proof of health care coverage before you could be hired. Mandating health insurance for all is similar to mandating what you eat, read or watch. These are choices one makes for themselves in a free society, but not in Hillary's version of a collective America.

She wants to sharply limit the use of fossil fuels, but doesn't say a word about developing our own independence from imported oil by drilling in known oil rich locations or building more oil refineries to increase output.

Hillary stands for unlimited abortion, funding for more family planning to reduce the size of families, funding for comprehensive child care , and early sex education for children. All her plans make it easier for women to abrogate their parenting responsibilities to the Federal government , so they can be part of the work force that will be heavily taxed to fund her socialistic programs.

Ronald Reagan was confronted with Democratic principles similar to what this Socialist carpet bagger from Arkansas is proposing in the 1970's, and he successfully convinced Americans that this is no way a free Country should go. God only knows if some Republican can articulate the correct arguments to keep the "gimme-gimme socialists from prevailing in 2008. This blogger hopes there is one out there, but thus far I am very worried that this Country is in for a drastic and irreversible turn to the left!