Petraeus Betray Us, Feinstein Lyin’: Iraq and the Greater War on Terror

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a shame, but par for the course. Groups like this don’t appear to have any difficulty when it comes to say, a Durban II; then again, Durban II is in line with Democrat talking points and strategy of reframing the debate with misleading, obfuscation and lies.

Friday Sermon from Iran

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday Sermon from Iran

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Provisional Friday Prayer Leader of Tehran Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami led the congregation with his usual flair and aplomb; speaking of the recent televised confessions of American-Iranian “spies”:

‘”This policy has worked in some countries, but in Iran, it has faced defeat, just like the other failed US policies on Iran.”’

Khatami’s statement fits perfectly in line with the propaganda of the regime and mullahs, which is according to Amir Taheri in today’s NY Post, “The Conspiracy That Wasn’t.” The use of these hostages is for the fodder they can make of them and the United States and msm should be screaming up a storm about it.

The use of the propaganda unfolds to include statements such as:

‘”During the past fifty years the United States has directly or indirectly interfered in the internal affairs of 25 countries of the world militarily, and the funny thing is that Washington also claims it is after the establishment of democracy throughout the world.”’

Khatami, member in good standing of the Leadership Experts Assembly also highlighted Iran’s role in preserving stability and security in the Middle East region, and added:

“Iran’s policies regarding Iraq have always been aimed at promoting security measures there and serving the oppressed Iraqi nation, and yet the United States has always, resorting to fake pretexts, been accusing Iran of interference in Iraq’s affairs.”

“The US policy in Iraq today is aimed at bringing the Ba’th Party back to power, and fueling the flames of tribal and sectarian wars there.”

This, as well as every Friday Sermon would be very amusing were it not so alarming – These are the people we would negotiate away from their “peaceful nukes?”

Oddly, on that very subject a joint communiqué stated that:

“Iran’s nuclear issue should be solved through dimplomatic channels and negotiations with no strings attached.”

It also stressed and warned of the “danger of the Zionist regime’s nuclear arsenal for the region and called for immediate action by international bodies to foil this threat.”

Condemning “the continued aggressive and oppressive acts of the Zionist regime” it also “underscored the rights of the Syrian people to restore occupied Golan Heights up to the June 1967 borderline.”

Obviously the various “injustices” are part of the pathetic nature of the backward region, where defeat followed by their attacks and instigation are used as pity party talking points. Unfortunately, the pity parties consist of continued death and mayhem.

Futher proof the “peaceful” intentions were underlined in the statement with:

“Iran and Syria in their joint statement invited the Palestinian groups to dialogue and keeping national unity and supported the rights of the Palestinian nation for the return of the refugees to their motherland and establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Ghods city designated as its capital.”

Additional proofs of “peaceful” intentions were noted earlier this week with the following news:

an adviser to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, claimed Iranian ownership of the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain stating:

“The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran.”

As well is the announcement of the inclusion of Syria under the Iranian missile umbrella aimed at 600 targets in Israel threatened as retaliation if Iran is attacked.

These are the people we would negotiate away from their “peaceful nukes?” Nice

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part II

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Revitalizing the Military

“To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.”

Candidate Obama suggests that:

“We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training — including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others.”

This is much like Obama’s and any candidates picture perfect scenario. Most if not all of the dreams require cooperation from all sides; with self-absorbed bureaucracies this is indeed a challenge, forget about foreign cooperation. But again, this is all failing due to the intransigence of Bush. The Bush administration suffers and suffered from the great push back from the military as well as a lack of cooperation from individuals in the State Department and elsewhere that were and are used to doing business a certain way. Senator Obama should not expect more open arms, excepting of course that he is not Bush…anybody but Bush.

Halting the spread of Nuclear Weapons

“In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy — the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.”

What is aggressive diplomacy? Sounds decisive, active or action oriented, it certainly doesn’t imply sitting on ones hands. Is the tactic that has been used with regard to Iran, i.e. EU-3, UN, IAEA, what is inferred? Could it be considered “aggressive” to continually return to the same negotiating table over and over; is this forcefully aggressive? Why should Obama or any of the other candidates get a pass, when they bravely proclaim the “military option” will not be taken off the table? Is it only different based upon the reaction or overreaction of the opposition party or media that makes it “war-mongering” and troublesome?

In halting the spread of nuclear weapons, one of the reasons for going into Iraq, is it really wise to use the military? Might that not enflame international sensitivities? “Blood for radiation,” is this really what we want to put our youngest and brightest up against?

The senator writes of rogue regimes developing nuclear know-how (in one instance under the auspices of “peaceful nuclear energy.”) and terrorist groups like al Qaeda that would love to get their hands on the materials or purchase an existing nuclear weapon.

Our present set up is not enough, according to George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn; which I do not doubt, but shouldn’t we check with others on this as well? Perhaps in a more bi-partisan fashion?

It is no lie that poorly secured stockpiles of uranium and “approximately 15,000-16,000 nuclear weapons,” in the former Soviet Union exist, but as Obama declares he will immediately begin providing “$50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty” be the answer? Isn’t this just looking for more bureaucratic red tape and international bickering going to remain? Is it really wise for a leader offering “aggressive diplomacy,” to invest in the same IAEA that has failed thus far to curtail Iran’s “peaceful nukes.” We’ve done four years of this to date; isn’t it really time for something else? Perhaps not, as 14 plus years was still not enough with regard to Saddam’s Iraq.

Where will these “strong international coalitions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program,” come from? Our we talking about the same group of nations that are presently on our planet? “Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races,” really, hasn’t that already begun in the Middle East with the forward momentum of Iran’s advances prodding them along?

Active cooperation from Russia is a necessity even though we don’t see eye to eye on everything and we “must not shy away from pushing for more democracy and accountability” from them, but the common interest of nuclear weapons and material is something we should strive for. Good idea.

In the interest of thinking it through, where will we put all these stockpiles of “nuclear material,” Yucca Mountain?

End of Part II

“In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part I“

Never Jump Too Quickly on an Offer from Iran

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

From The NY Times today:

“BAGHDAD, July 2 — Iranian operatives helped plan a January raid in Karbala in which five American soldiers were killed, an American military spokesman in Iraq said today.”

“Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, the military spokesman, also said that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has used operatives from the Lebanese militia group Hezbollah as a “proxy” to train and arm Shiite militants in Iraq.”

“American military officials have long asserted that the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, has trained and equipped Shiite militants in Iraq. The Americans have also cited extensive intelligence that Iran has supplied Shiite militants with the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq, a bomb called the explosively formed penetrator, which is capable of piercing an armored vehicle.”

In response to the news of intelligence gleaned by the U.S. through interrogations that have led to a comfort level by the U.S. of stepping up the accusations, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa “Who Loves You Baby?” Mohamad-Najjar blamed the U.S. and CIA:

“Occupation of Iraq followed a big lie, escalation of tension in the occupied regions and resort to terrorist tactics have been the customary methods of the CIA to justify the US presence in the region, cover up Washington’s past failures and mislead public opinion in the US.”

Iran denies any involvement as they have repeatedly said that Iraq security is Iranian security and of the utmost importance to them. However that is antithetical to what would most likely provide the most security to Iran. The U.S. presence in Iraq is not good for Iran and Iraq has a Shia majority.

On June 25^th an opportunity for “jumping on Iran’s latest offer,” in which it was reported that, “Iran has invited an International Atomic Energy Agency team to Tehran to work on clearing up suspicions about its nuclear program, an IAEA spokeswoman said Monday.” Oddly just a little more time will be necessary to make it happen….SURPRISE!!!!!! What was considered, “the latest move in possibly allowing Iran further time to continue with its “peaceful” nuclear research,” is appearing to be just that.

From IRNA this morning:

“Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said that Tehran is ready to continue its nuclear talks within the next three weeks, it was reported on Monday.”

This was reported in a interview on the “Arab-language news channel Al-Jazeera broadcast Sunday evening.”

Additionally he indicated that all sides of the debate should be supportive of this new initiative. Iran also wishes to get the talk continuing with a new suggestion of taking this from the U.N. Security Council and back into the purview of the U.N.’s IAEA.

Time is all that Iran needs; let’s continue giving it to them.