Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Reject the UN
Screw the UN
Conservative Thoughts

In the spirit of the season of giving this Christmas post is dedicated to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces around the world in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Also in the spirit of the season it should be made clear that goodwill toward men is a phrase that requires setting aside other matters if only for a moment as dictated by circumstance. With that in mind you may still find it a little peculiar that there would be a kind word for an outfit like MoveOn.org. But hey, it’s Christmas and regardless of anything else and that things may change shortly, one should give credit where credit is due. Assuming this is not a hoax and ignoring the natural tendency to comment on items outside the scope of the story, Stanford Matthews from the Blog @ MoreWhat.com would like to go on record thanking those at MoveOn.org for raising a serious six figures for the troops at Christmas.

Even The Grinch Would Like This: MoveOn Raising Money For Troops
By Martin Kady II
Dec 21, 2007

(The Politico) Remember that whole “General Betray Us” advertisement back in September that criticized Army Gen. David Petraeus?

Well MoveOn.org, that scourge of the right wing, is raising money like crazy for a Christmas gift for the troops.

In the past 24 hours, MoveOn, perhaps the most powerful liberal advocacy group in the country, has raised $275,000 for the United Services Organizations (USO) for calling cards for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USO may be most associated with Bob Hope-type visits to troops overseas, but the non-partisan organization is clearly comfortable partnering with MoveOn if the cause helps soldiers stationed overseas during the holidays.

It is not a surprise that President Bush would again remind the country of our troops and their families for the incredible sacrifice and commitment being contributed daily. At the very least we can remember them in our prayers and spread the word so they know we are thinking of them and exceedingly grateful for their service. The President’s weekly radio address included an often repeated sentiment for the troops as reported by VOA. Try to ignore the remainder of the report about someone else’s take which is not so pleasant.

President Bush Praises US Troops, Their Families
By Sean Maroney
Washington
22 December 2007

In his weekly radio address, President Bush thanked U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families for their sacrifices. “This Christmas, many will sit down for dinner thinking of their loved ones half a world away. These families deserve the thanks and the prayers of our whole nation,” he said.

There are news reports of generous efforts being provided by the public and various organizations to help the troops have some kind of Christmas away from home. If you want to help there are nearly countless ways to pitch in. If you have no idea where to start, simply use google and type the words troops and Christmas. Plenty of results will point you in the right direction. Or of course you can check with the DOD, any of the armed services, the USO or your elected representatives or the VA or someone.

And finally, let’s make that annual effort to extend the good we think of during the holidays so the New Year can bring the kind of solutions needed to solve some of the world’s problems. If we all try again and keep repeating these sentiments to each other long enough, we might finally succeed with some major improvements.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year or whatever sentiment does it for you. Cheers.

By VOA News
08 December 2007

U.S. congressional leaders are close to finishing work on a compromise budget bill that includes money for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, without a deadline to withdraw the troops.

The $500 billion spending package would include at least $70 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while providing $11 billion more than what President Bush requested for domestic programs favored by Democratic Party representatives.

The agreement on the Iraq war funding represents the latest failed attempt by many congressional Democrats to impose a timeline that would bring U.S. troops out of Iraq. President Bush has adamantly rejected any timelines, and lawmakers in his Republican Party have firmly backed his efforts.

The measure is expected come to a vote in the House of Representatives early next week.

With a family history of military service as well as his own service to country and years as a prisoner of war it should have surprised no one when Senator John McCain announced he would be spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. That a number of others from Congress and the Governor of Utah joined Senator McCain on the trip, beyond the obvious sentiment of support for the troops, is a welcome departure from the continued opposition of the Democratic party and base for victory in Iraq. Senator McCain’s record and determined support for the US military does not suggest a political motive for this trip due to his Presidential campaign. He has always supported the troops so there is no need to play games on this topic.

While you can disagree with any of the members of this group on various topics or issues, there are no grounds for opposing unconditional support for the men and women who protect and preserve this country’s freedom and democracy. To oppose them for political gain is a travesty and those who do should be ashamed of themselves. To compound that shameful behavior by continuing to oppose victory for the mission in the face of remarkable achievements only confirms the harmful nature of such opposition. Kindly take your cues from the information provided from the members of this Congressional delegation who serve their country’s best interests by the actions taken this Thanksgiving and their honorable support of the troops.

SENATORS MCCAIN, LIEBERMAN, GRAHAM, CHAMBLISS, BARRASSO, GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN TRAVEL TO IRAQ FOR THANKSGIVING

November 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Barrasso (R-WY) and Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) traveled through Iraq beginning yesterday.

Upon arrival, the group met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for a briefing on new developments and progress in the region. McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Chambliss, Barrasso and Huntsman spent much of Thanksgiving with troops in Baghdad and al Anbar Province.

The CODEL today met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Adel Abdulmahdi, Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces and constituents in Kirkuk.

The CODEL will return tomorrow.

Lieberman Statement on Thanksgiving Trip to Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) issued the following statement on his Thanksgiving visit with the troops in Iraq:

“I had the privilege of spending Thanksgiving this year in Iraq with some of our brave men and women in uniform from Connecticut.

It is thanks to the service and sacrifice of these American heroes that the extraordinary progress we have seen over the past months in Iraq has been possible — progress for which all Americans should be grateful.

Over the last several months, our troops have dramatically transformed the security situation in Iraq by rolling back Al Qaeda and Iranian supported extremists. As a result of their courageous efforts, violence is sharply down, and our enemies are off balance and on the run.

My trip reinforced my belief that we must support the mission in Iraq and ensure that our troops receive the resources from Congress they need and deserve. Our troops are bravely carrying out their mission - and we have an obligation not to let them down at this critical moment.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 23, 2007
Contact: Marshall Wittmann

Graham Votes Against Democrats Iraq Withdrawal Plan

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today voted against a Democratic plan to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq. The plan, which called for all American troops to be out of Iraq by December 15, 2008, had already passed the House of Representatives.

He made this statement:

“Some people seem intent on taking one of the most successful counter-insurgency military operations in American history – the Surge – and undercutting it by the acts of one of the most dysfunctional Congresses in American history.

“We cannot deny funding to our troops in the field and we cannot replace the judgment of our military commanders with a dysfunctional Congress being led around by the nose by groups like Code Pink and Moveon.org. They refuse to acknowledge success. All they see is the next election and the potential for their next TV ad.

“We must not send a message to our enemies that we’re prepared to let them get off the mat and back into the fight. This was a ridiculous proposal which undercuts our national security interests. I’m proud to have been part of the effort to defeat this ill-advised measure.”

#####

Graham Calls on Democrats to Pass Funding for Troops and Veterans

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today called on Senate Democrat leaders to pass troop and veterans funding legislation that can be signed into law.

Graham was joined at a press conference by a representative from Vets for Freedom and a group of Senators including Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Richard Burr of North Carolina.

Graham said:

“I am extremely disappointed the Democrat-controlled Congress cannot appreciate that the surge has been one the most effective military operations in American history.

“We owe it to our troops and our own national security interests to continue to support their historic efforts. Instead, some seem intent on pulling the rug out from under their feet by failing to fund our troops while they are on the battlefield.

“The strings attached to the House bill put in jeopardy the gains we have made. It also sends the wrong message to a diminished enemy.”

The Senate has yet to vote on the bridge funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Conference Report.

####

Barrasso Visits Troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving

Wyoming Senator Travels To Iraq With McCain, Lieberman

November 21, 2007

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Barrasso , R-Wyo., will visit American troops and meet with top military commanders during a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq.

Barrasso joins a small congressional delegation led by Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Ct.

According to Barrasso, in addition to Thanksgiving dinner with the troops, the delegation will use the holiday to examine several areas of the country and meet with high-ranking military officials from the U.S. and Iraq.

“This is my first opportunity to see first-hand the job being done by our military commanders and troops in Iraq ,” Barrasso said. “As well, I think it is particularly important on this holiday of thanks that we tell our military men and women how proud we are of the job they do and how much they are missed back home,” Barrasso said.

Barrasso has made a special request with military affairs in Iraq that he is able to meet and dine with Wyoming soldiers if possible.

Following the trip, Barrasso will return directly to Wyoming.

Photos:

1) Dinner with the troops

2) Barrasso visits with General Petraeus

3) Wyoming soldiers with Senator Barrasso

Governor Huntsman Spent Thanksgiving with U.S. Troops

Salt Lake City - Utah Governor Jon Huntsman joined U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and John Barrasso (R-WY) on a tour through Iraq and the surrounding region beginning Thursday. The delegation will return to Washington DC Saturday.

Upon arrival, the group met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for a briefing on new developments and progress in the region. Huntsman, McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Chambliss and Barrasso spent much of Thanksgiving with troops in Baghdad and al Anbar Province.

The delegation today met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Adel Abdulmahdi, Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces and constituents in Kirkuk.

In her own words and as of this writing still published on speaker.house.gov, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi documents, for all to see, her long standing and steadfast support for the Democratic party’s surrender agenda as well as other failed initiatives that provide nothing positive for the United States of America.

In addition to the failure of a 100 hour, day, month, lifetime, whatever legislative agenda her promise to drain the swamp and end the culure of corruption in Washington which she blamed entirely on the GOP has not been honored. The leading Democratic party Presidential candidate has since embraced lobbyists as real Americans and been shown to accept campaign contributions from numerous criminals with no intervention from Pelosi or her party. The swamp endures.

With a press release title like, ‘Pelosi: Bush and His Republican Allies Are Preventing Extra Funds from Reaching Our Troops’, Nancy Pelosi continues to adhere to her surrender strategy even after the Congressional approval rating has fallen to the lowest level in many years. There is no evidence to support her claim that the American people desire surrender. To attempt to shift the blame for not providing timely appropriations to the troops on President Bush is as shameless a tactic as her surrender strategy which this latest ploy supports.

Here is a review of the surrender strategy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends:

source: speaker.house.gov
11/21/2006
“The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said. “We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq.”

Apparently Nancy Pelosi only considers the like minded far left fringe as ‘the American people’. Anyone who supports the troops and their mission for victory in Iraq is not included by Pelosi since they oppose surrender.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/05/2006
“We predicated some of the conversation in a letter that Senator Reid, myself and others in the leadership sent to the President on October 20. At that time, we reiterated our concern that ‘stay the course’ was not a strategy, but a slogan. We urged the President to work with us in a bipartisan way and we presented four changes to current policy: first, redeployment and transition of our troops out of Iraq; second, disarm the militia; third, have an international conference to discuss with the countries in the region the stability and reconstruction of the region, especially Iraq; and fourth, to amend the constitution to relieve some of the civil strife and to spread some of the political advantages that the elections there promised.

The last two excerpts are from just after the 2006 midterm elections. From the beginning the Democrats as stated by Pelosi above have steadfastly supported surrender in Iraq. Their first of the four misguided policies above calls for ‘redeployment and transition out of Iraq which is plainly surrender. That is followed by a near impossible task after a suggested surrender, an appeasement and unnecessary meddling in Iraqi affairs after departure. But that is the way of the Democratic party, now and in the past.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/06/2006
“The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President’s Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.

“Months ago, House and Senate Democratic leaders suggested to the President that he implement one of the Study Group’s chief recommendations – to change the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and support, which would enable the redeployment of U.S. forces to begin. Now that the Study Group has endorsed this proposal, I hope that the President will recognize that he must take our policy in Iraq in a new direction.

Pelosi touts the Iraq Study Group as well as the recommendations of the 911 Commission Report. Funny how she makes no mention of Section 4.5 of the 911 Commission which details failures of the Democratic party against terrorism and Osama Bin Laden leading up to the attacks on the WTC in September 2001. That report details the failures of the Clinton Administration in stopping Osama Bin Laden and perhaps the 911 attack. The ABC airing of the ‘Path to 911′ was met with oppostiion from those associated with or involved in that failure. But the docudrama was derived from the 911 Commission Report and you can read it for yourself.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and friends have supported surrender in Iraq and still do. Even with the success of the troop surge that they have criticized for nearly a year they continue to be fully invested in surrender and appeasement of terrorists. Do they even know how silly they look?

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, Church and State, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

It appears there is more proof the Democratic party is playing for the other team. The party that will not admit their last Presidential Administration had anything to do with allowing 911 to happen continues to push for surrender in Iraq. If you don’t believe they share responsibility for the 911 terrorist attack in NYC, read the 911 Commission Report or check the excerpts on this blog from Section 4.5.

They don’t accept any responsibility for the 911 attacks. All they can say is that they were lied to about the mission, we’re losing the war and the surge won’t work. Now it is the surge is working but that is not good enough. Apparently these morons will continue to push for surrender even if the insurgents commit mass suicide with Democratic party Kool Aid, all Muslims convert to another religion and every country in the world is run by Reid and Pelosi. Perhaps if they pulled their heads out of their backsides everything would not smell so bad to them.

If the left that exists today was in Congress in 1944 there would have been no D-Day, there would have been no Allied victory in WWII and we would all be fluent in German and Japanese. Their preference for partial birth abortions and eliminating traditional values including strong families headed by a man and a woman with a deep appreciation for religious or spiritual influence in daily life weakens the fabric that has strengthened this nation throughout history. You can disagree with others without supporting actions that risk the future of the country and assist those who would do us harm.

Despite the Democratic party’s dysfunctional efforts most news coming out of Iraq is positive. More rebuilding is taking place, more troops are re-enlisting in the field, fewer people are dying, more Iraqis are returning and more areas of the country are retuning to normal. Tribal leaders continue to support the US against insurgents or Al-Qaeda, both Shiite and Sunni clerics are promoting unity and the overall direction is improving. Yet the Democratic party still holds their surrender strategy. Their claim that the midterms were a public mandate for surrender are as big a load of manure as the one they’re trying to sell now. Pardon that error. It’s the same load they’re trying to sell now.

Contrary to the famed Iraq Study Group the Democratic party last used to present their argument, the surge is working. If you cannot admit your were wrong you do not have the strength or courage to govern. That is sort of a moot point as you have done nothing to govern since assuming the majority in Congress after the midterms of 2006.

Iraq Debate Steps Up In Washington
By Paula Wolfson
Washington
02 December 2007

Wolfson report - Download MP3 (659k)
Listen to Wolfson report

U.S. military officials say progress is being made in Iraq, months after an influx of additional American troops. But prominent Democrats in Congress say the military gains are not enough, and the Iraqi government must do more on the political front. VOA’s Paula Wolfson reports.

With Congress deliberating war funding, the debate over the situation in Iraq is heating up again.

The Bush administration says the troop surge ordered by the president earlier this year has resulted in a drop in the level of violence.

The U.S. second-in-command in Iraq says there has been steady progress, and things seem to be moving in the right direction.

General Ray Odierno says both U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties are down. He also says there has been a 25 to 30-percent decline on foreign fighters entering Iraq, and notes Syria is taking steps along its Iraqi border.

He spoke on CNN’s Late Edition program.

“The additional forces we have [in Iraq] have been able to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries there were,” said General Odierno. “We continue to see increased capacity in the Iraqi security forces. But probably most importantly, we are seeing the Iraqi people reject terrorism within Iraq.”

The troop surge was ordered by President Bush in an effort to create a security environment in which the Iraqi government could move forward with political reconciliation.

General Odierno was asked if Iraq’s leaders are taking the necessary steps.

“They probably are not doing it as quickly as we would like,” he said. “But they are starting to take steps. Some of these problems are long-term problems that have gone on for decades in Iraq and it is going to take some time to solve them.”

But some members of the U.S. Congress wonder if the current Iraqi government can bring the country together.

Senator Carl Levin - a Democrat from the state of Michigan - is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He also appeared on CNN’s Late Edition.

“There is growing, I would say, frustration with the national political leaders in their failure to carry out commitments they made to themselves and us a year ago,” said Senator Levin.

Levin said Congress will provide funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, but added lawmakers will continue to press the Bush administration to pressure Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to settle these political differences.

Members of Levin’s committee have been traveling to Iraq in recent days for a first hand look at the situation. Virginia Democrat James Webb told NBC’s Meet the Press that military progress is not enough. He said the Bush administration has not matched the high performance of American troops with a robust regional diplomacy.

“That is the only way we are going to be able to take advantage of the quality of the work our military people have done and we are still waiting,” said Senator Webb.

Webb has a son who is serving with U.S. forces in al-Anbar province. He said there has been political reconciliation in that part of the country, but stressed it began before the influx of extra American troops.

crossposted at:
Faultline USA
Conservative Thoughts

For those who continue to suggest that recent success in Iraq is some sort of mirage, you may want to consider a report from the AP describing recent developments among the Shiite and Sunni clerics. As is always the case with such news one should remain cautiously optimistic. But to dismiss positive results especially if your prevailing position is that of a far left antiwar surrendering and appeasing liberal makes the case for those who oppose your defeatist and submissive behavior.

The now famous troop surge that was dismissed by liberal critics who are totally invested in defeat for at least political reasons has established a beneficial trend in Iraq. Reports have indicated the improvements were enough to convince displaced Iraqis to return home. And while visitors to my blog have been known to call the reduction in violence an Al-Qaeda ploy to wait out a US departure, the combination of the surge, peaceful pursuits of clerics, returning Iraqis and the continued joint efforts of US forces and tribal leaders against insurgents discredits that conclusion. It appears to be more of a desperate reaction to prop up the failing surrender position of the left. How misguided it is that some people will favor defeat over the very democracy that gives them the freedom to act so stupid.

There is no time like the present to take the opportunity to again express my appreciation for all the men and women in the armed services past and present for their dedication, commitment, courage and sacrifice. Their contribution to the cause of peace and freedom makes it possible for all of us to lead the lives we do and gives hope to those who have yet to reach this universal goal. To take a moment to express thanks is the very least one can do for all that has been bestowed by the selfless acts of others. To oppose or counter or otherwise dishonor their service is a sin for which there is currently no adequate definition.

In the political climate present in these United States it is incumbent upon all of us to take every opportunity to support the troops as there are far too many instances of people and organizations promoting the weakness that only serves the enemy and is detrimental to the future of this nation. Too many have sacrificed too much to allow that to happen. Remember this as the Presidential campaign continues and we are all called to decide who will lead this country. Those who have repeatedly called for surrender in the face of the growing threat of terrorism must not be allowed to be involved in governing this country. Certainly not in the highest office in the land. The Office of President of the United States requires unquestionable strength and complete commitment to resist those who would do harm to this country.

The positive advances in Iraq mentioned earlier need to be fostered by us all. Rather than leave in defeat as suggested by the left we need to depart after victory and assisting a deserving people to live in the peace, freedom and prosperity afforded by the process of democracy.

Iraq’s top Shiite cleric calls for Sunni-Shiite unity, end to sectarian bloodshed
The Associated Press
Published: November 27, 2007

NAJAF, Iraq: Iraq’s top Shiite cleric renewed his call for an end to sectarian violence in the country and for Sunni and Shiite Muslims to unite, according to a Sunni cleric who met him Tuesday in this holy city south of Baghdad.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s plea for peace and unity came as a group of Sunni and Shiite clerics met in Najaf in the latest attempt by clerics from both sects to stem the violence. The meeting was sponsored by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Iraq’s most influential Shiite party, which is closely linked to al-Sistani.

Later, Khaled al-Mulla, one of the 10-member Sunni delegation, said the Iranian-born religious leader called for solidarity between the two sects and an end to the bloodshed, which has intensified after a major Shiite shrine north of Baghdad was bombed in February 2006 by Sunni militants.

“I am a servant of all Iraqis,” al-Mulla quoted al-Sistani as saying.

crossposted at:
Reject the UN

While good news from Iraq should never be overlooked with the MSM tendency to focus on the bad, overstating the good news would be counterproductive at the least. With the uber liberal left totally invested in defeat at every turn and sporting their surrender monkey mascot, the stunning success of the troop surge in Iraq was enough evidence for the media to begin covering positive stories about Iraq but that is not the case with White Flag Harry Reid and his sidekick No Way Nancy.

Enter the much criticized United Nations. They may have published accurate figures on some of the stats of returning Iraqis based on a comparison with the following report from Alsumaria TV.

Hundreds of Iraqi displaced return home
Friday, November 23, 2007 10:36 GMT
Encouraged by the reduction of violence in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqi citizens returned to their hometown, in a moving scene that had refugees shed tears as they got back together with their families and relatives.
Displaced Minister Abdul Samad Sultan confirmed that thousands of people have returned to Iraq while many of them owned houses which were taken while they were gone. In this context, Sultan explained that the Ministry is coordinating with Iraqi-US security operations commanders in Baghdad to help returning displaced regain their homes. Yet, international rescue organizations noted that the number of displaced inside Iraq exceeds the number of returning citizens.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Finances Minister Bayan Jaber Sulag arrived to Damascus in a visit aimed to offer a $ 52 million aid to Syria in support to its efforts of caring for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees on its territory.

But the UN can’t be expected to be on the same page with others on all information and they have a knack for overstating the obvious. Besides numbers on returning Iraqis, the UN states Iraq offered $15 million to Syria as financial assistance for dealing with refugees. The report above puts the number at $52 million. But then the UN is not known for their ability to handle money properly. They also warn that encouraging Iraqis to return home is a bad idea since the region is still not stable enough. Do you suppose the Iraqis are capable of making that distinction on their own? Who should know better how things are going? A group that left Iraq at the first sign of trouble or citizens thoroughly invested in the future of Iraq? And of course the UN makes the case that Iraqis are returning because of visa requirements in refugee host countries like Syria and because they are running out of money. They reject the notion that any are returning due to the improved security conditions. Certainly violence is not a thing of the past in Iraq but drawing conclusions about anything in the region is a risky proposition.

UN refugee agency warns against return to Iraq
Fri Nov 23, 9:54 AM ET

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees “does not believe that the time has come to promote, organise or encourage returns” given the volatile and unpredictable security situation in Iraq, spokeswoman Jennifer Pagonis told journalists.

“Presently, there is no sign of any large-scale return to Iraq,” she added.

Iraq said earlier this week that it will offer Syria 15 million dollars (10 million euros) to help pay the costs of sheltering refugees.

Then there is the estimate in general of people displaced as a result of violence in Iraq. Some reports say about 2 million Iraqis are displaced while others have the number at 4 million. This might be explained by not separating internal from external displacements.

The number of internally displaced people, or IDPs, in Iraq grew by 16 percent in September - to 2,299,425, the Red Crescent said. That figure has skyrocketed since the beginning of 2007, when less than half a million people were listed as displaced.

The following report from the BBC reflects the most common report on the numbers but there are plenty of others out there.

Iraq’s ministry of migration told the BBC about 1,000 people were returning every day.

The UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, estimates about 45,000 Iraqis returned from Syria in October - the first month of the school year.

WHERE IRAQIS HAVE FLED TO
Syria: 1,400,000
Jordan: 750,000
Gulf states: 200,000
Egypt: 100,000
Iran: 54,000
Lebanon: 40,000
Turkey: 10,000
Internally displaced: At least 2,000,000
Source: UNHCR (October 2007)

Note that the BBC indicates Iraq’s ministry puts the number at 1,000 per day yet the UN estimates 45,000 during a one month period. And the UN supplied numbers on refugees to each country plus internal and external displacements seems to be inflated when compared to other reports. Since they just admitted their AIDS numbers were exaggerated it would not be unreasonable to suspect this is another math failure for the United Nations. Still, the most annoying part of the UN’s take on Iraq is that they have a take at all. It would be nice if there were a few issues and events in which they did not feel compelled to butt in. In other words, keep your opinions, suggestions and urgings to yourself from time to time. If for no other reason than to not be so predictable.

There are so many tasks that the United Nations fails at miserably it would be in their best interest and certainly ours if they would limit their involvement in world affairs to focus on a handful of items in an effort to improve their performance. Rather than take on all the world’s problems their own Millennium Development Goals failures should be adequate proof they need to reduce their workload. Please, take this hint. Scale it back to maybe one project per year. If you can successfully complete one, then the following year try two, and so on.

The United Nations performance does not indicate they should be giving advice to anyone. And that certainly includes the Iraqis. These people have suffered enough and they are entitled to make their won decisions without unnecessary interference from the UN.

In conclusion, it may be fair to state that hundreds of Iraqis are returning to Iraq. The rate may be as high as 1,000 or so per month. The total number of persons displaced may be 4 million. And the US military troop surge has made it possible for people to consider returning. It is likely they understand that the risks of violence still exist but the situation is much improved. More people speaking on Iraq could express the good news rather than focusing on the obvious and typical darker sides of war. That can help bring this to a speedier conclusion.

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
15 November 2007U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Pentagon funding shortfalls resulting from congressional debate about the conduct of the Iraq war could result in difficulty supplying the troops and significant layoffs in his department. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

Secretary Gates says there is a “serious misconception” in the Congress that he can move money among accounts in his department in order to provide for the troops in action. He says if the Congress does not pass a war funding bill that President Bush can sign soon, he will have to take drastic action.

“The military would cease operations at all army bases by mid-February of next year,” said Robert Gates. “This would result in the furloughing of about 100,000 government employees and a like number of contractor employees at army bases. These layoffs would have a cascading effect on depots and procurement. Similar actions would follow for the Marine Corps about a month later.”

Secretary Gates says preparations will have to be made this week to put such a plan into action, and formal notices will have to go to employees and contractors by mid-December.

The secretary appeared particularly frustrated by the ongoing congressional debate because, he says, the president has already made many of the policy changes the Congress wanted - announcing the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq and a change in their mission to more training and supervision and less direct combat.

“I think that the debate has really moved on,” he said. “It’s really not about principles, it seems to me, any more. It’s about pacing. And that’s where I think deference should be paid to the views of those conducting the operations.”

Secretary Gates says U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Washington agree that the drawdown of U.S. forces must be done slowly and carefully to avoid losing the gains made by this year’s surge of forces and change in counterinsurgency strategy.

The secretary also said he shares some of the concern expressed by members of Congress about the lack of progress on key issues by the Iraqi government and parliament. But he says there has been some progress that had not been anticipated, and reconciliation and governmental improvements on the local level are starting to put pressure on national leaders.

“We are beginning to see some very tentative indications that there is increasing pressure from some of the provinces on the ministries and on the central government to get on with sorting out some of these other problems and to become more effective,” said Secretary Gates. “So we need to keep the pressure on, and I think we will.”

Gates would not endorse comments by the number two U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, who was quoted in Thursday’s Washington Post as saying the United States would have to review its Iraq strategy if the Baghdad government does not make a breakthrough on reconciliation by next summer, when the first phase of the U.S. troop drawdown will be in full swing.

By Dan Robinson
Washington
23 October 2007
A Democratic lawmaker has apologized for remarks he made last week about the war in Iraq that angered opposition Republicans and were also condemned by fellow Democrats. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, where Congressman Pete Stark’s apology came after the House of Representatives rejected by a vote of 196 to 173 a Republican attempt to formally reprimand him.

Congressman Stark’s comments last week came as the House prepared for an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to override President Bush’s veto of legislation to re-authorize and expand a children’s health insurance program.

In arguing in favor of their measure, Democrats asserted that President Bush and Republicans were unable to find the funds for medical insurance for children while spending tens of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq.

At one point in the debate, Congressman Stark came to the floor and made these remarks. “You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it, to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq, to get their heads blown off, for the president’s amusement.”

Stark’s statement, which was widely published, provoked anger from Republicans who accused Stark of insulting the president and the U.S. military.

Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement calling the remarks inappropriate. House majority leader Steny Hoyer used stronger words, calling on Stark to apologize to the president and U.S. troops he may have insulted.

On Tuesday, the House Republican leader, John Boehner, introduced a measure to censure Stark. “On behalf of the courageous men and women of our armed forces, who are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security, I offer a privileged resolution that is on the desk,” he said.

The House rejected the resolution by a vote of 196 to 173.

Stark, who had come under pressure from the Democratic leadership, came to the floor. “I want to apologize, first of all, my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president, his family, to the troops that may have found in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on,” he said.

In a weekly news conference later, Democratic leaders described the matter as closed, and sought to turn the media’s attention to what Democrats say will be a new attempt to pass the children’s health measure, and negotiations with Republicans and the Bush administration about another bill dealing with warrantless electronic surveillance.

In recent years, Republicans and Democrats have fallen afoul of rules allowing the opposition party to demand that remarks on the floor be taken down or removed from the record.

During a 2005 debate on Iraq, a Republican lawmaker Jean Schmidt apologized for a statement suggesting that a key anti-war critic, Congressman Jack Murtha, was a coward.

Murtha himself issued an apology earlier this year for threatening a special spending request, known as an earmark, of a Republican lawmaker who questioned Murtha’s own special interest spending provision for his home district.

By VOA News
24 October 2007
Spanish police have arrested six people suspected of recruiting Islamic militants to fight in Iraq’s insurgency.Spain’s Interior Ministry says the suspects were arrested Wednesday in the northern province of Burgos. It says police searched several homes and a butcher shop and seized documents and computers.

The ministry says the suspects used Internet chat rooms to recruit militants, raise money for jailed terrorists and distribute terrorist propaganda.

Spanish authorities say it is the first time they have broken up an alleged terrorist cell that primarily used the Internet for its activities.

The detainees include an Algerian man thought to have led the group and another man of Moroccan origin.

On Tuesday, a Spanish court charged 22 people with involvement in another terrorist cell accused of recruiting insurgents for Iraq.

Spanish National Court Judge Baltasar Garzon charged 18 suspects with belonging to a terrorist group and another four as suspected collaborators.

One of the suspects is Omar Nakcha, a Moroccan who also is accused of helping terrorists involved in the 2004 Madrid train bombings escape from justice.

Two of the suspects are accused of belonging to the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, a network thought to be active in several European countries. The Spanish court issued warrants for their arrest.

The political left in the United States, predominantly represented by the Democratic party, has a friend in the World Socialist Website. A post on that site is nearly a verbatim echo of the left’s response to the Haditha Marines and the US Military’s case against them. But who knows, many of those in or who support the Democratic party may already be card carrying members of this or some other socialist group.

The opening paragraph of the post is the best part. Not a single Marine involved in the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians two years ago in Haditha, Iraq will be charged with murder based upon last week’s recommendations by an investigating officer. The remainder of the piece is a full blown diatribe that serves no worthwhile purpose. But then if it does not embarrass one to be associated with a website entitled the World Socialist Website, the self-image of the author must be as contrived as the writing.

Perhaps their description of who they are will provide a little light in this dark abyss. The World Socialist Web Site is the Internet center of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system. If this does not sound like a typical Democrat it certainly mimics their agenda in Congress and elsewhere, like the campaign trail. And the previously referenced piece echoes their sentiment on the Haditha Marines and anything related to victory in the war in Iraq. Is this post an insensitive analysis for the tragedy of war? No. It is a statement that the antiwar left and their socialist counterpart have prolonged victory in Iraq by their continued public opposition that strengthened the enemy and was the self-fulfilling prophecy for their complaints. Fortunately, additional military operations in Iraq commenced earlier this year prove them wrong. Victory was and is achievable if they will just silence themselves and stop being an obstacle that favors the enemy.

Another post from the Bloggers News Network is more to the point about Haditha. It was touted as a major massacre, where innocent civilians were killed in cold blood by trigger happy soldiers.

The “massacre” was widely publicized, with news reports and pictures inflaming the public. Indeed, the news reports and pictures were deliberately manipulated by some as a way to influence public opinion against the regime that the soldiers were representing.

But when the case came to trial, the “evidence” fell apart, and most of the soldiers were acquitted, and only two given a minor punishment for lesser charges for their part in the killings.

It is like the left only deems death in war as unavoidable by pre-selecting those who die as someone who meets their standard of evil. The flaw in that method is demonstrated by all the good people who die in war and why most people dislike the activity so much they wish to achieve victory as soon as possible and certainly without delay so less good people die. The antiwar left either sabotages their own agenda by being the cause of their discontentor choosing the wrong side of the issue which makes it difficult for them to be successful.

It would be nice if they would stop interfering with the rest of us and climb on board before victory is achieved so we start acting like one country. Acting as they have is what really defines the two Americas their candidates talk about.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By VOA NewsThe heads of two rival Iraqi Shi’ite groups have agreed to renounce violence against each other and all Iraqis for the good of the country.

A statement from the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council Saturday said the group’s leader, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, and radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have agreed to cooperate through a joint committee and to unite their supporters throughout Iraq.

The two factions have a history of violence. In August, clashes between the groups left 51 people dead and more than 200 others wounded in the holy city of Karbala.

In other news, the U.S. military says coalition forces killed four militants south of Baghdad Saturday in an operation targeting an associate of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Two others were killed in another operation near Samarra. The military says nine suspects were captured in the raids, while nine more were detained in separate actions in Baghdad, Samarra and Kirkuk.

The U.S. military also released a statement denying media reports that the 25 people killed in an operation Friday near Baquba were innocent civilians. The military says it has confirmed the dead were members of an extremist group accused of smuggling weapons from Iran.

U.S. military authorities also have reported some success in bringing security to an al-Qaida stronghold southwest of Baghdad the military calls the “Triangle of Death.”

Colonel Michael Kershaw told reporters Friday that coalition forces have been able to reduce insurgent violence in the area with the help of Iraqi volunteers known as the “Concerned Local Citizen Movement”, including local Sunnis and former members of the military.

By VOA News
01 October 2007 Figures from the Iraqi government show that civilian deaths from violence in Iraq fell by more than half in September compared to the previous month.

The figures published Monday show that at least 840 civilians were killed in September, compared to more than 1,770 in August.

U.S. military deaths in September were at their lowest point in more than a year with more than 60 deaths. A U.S. military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox credited the decline in violence to the surge of American troops in Iraq, but he said the level of violence is still too high.

In developments Monday, a suicide bomber in the northern city of Mosul killed a university professor and wounded seven other people. The U.S. military said a U.S. soldier was killed by small-arms fire during combat operations in eastern Baghdad Sunday.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say military forces have killed at least 60 insurgents in operations since Friday. The U.S. military said Sunday that U.S. forces killed at least 20 insurgents who fired on an American air patrol outside Baghdad.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts

What would you expect from a group without the sense to understand the ‘larger issue’ they now claim as the excuse for actions denounced by anyone with a backbone? That’s right. More discussion of MoveOn since they so richly deserve every criticism directed at them. Was this said before? There are certain lines you don’t cross. And here is how MoveOn responds to their wake up call to do the right thing.

Yesterday, an organization so small its 17 employees don’t even have a central office, found itself under attack by not only President Bush, who said the ad was “disgusting,” but also by the Democratic-controlled Senate, which passed a resolution 72 to 25 expressing its own outrage. Many Democrats blamed the group for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war.

In an e-mail to its members last night, the group acknowledged that the content of the ad might have angered its allies but argued that a larger issue is at stake. “Maybe you liked our General Petraeus ad. Maybe you thought the language went too far,” they wrote. “But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad.”

This is the single largest example of the far left fringe base of the Democratic party that is being appeased and accommodated by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and many other Democrats who refused to acknowledge their over the top use of an ad in a national publication and the baseless attack on General Petraeus. A man with more honor and character than MoveOn could ever hope to achieve. But then, honorable achievements is obviously not something of which MoveOn would be interested.

Condemning MoveOn is the closest Congress has come to effortless bipartisan effectiveness since the performance ratings fell in the basement. Perhaps the Democratic party majority could seize the opportunity to acknowledge victory in Iraq is in this country’s best interest. Showing there is apolitical incentive to do the right thing might become contagious. Then the two parties could actually get something worthwhile completed and watch their numbers go up. Continuing to cozy up to MoveOn is not a recipe for success.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Had Congress and a large portion of the American public consistently, and without wavering, supported the mission in Iraq from the beginning and withheld criticism until after victory, the ‘enemy’ would not have been encouraged to continue.  Say all you want about why the US military is there but the fact remains they are.  And there is a better than even chance if the necessary support from home had been there, that same US military would be home by now, with victory.

So the point is that those who have adopted the left antiwar theme contributed in whole and in part to the difficulties faced in Iraq.  Senator Warner’s change of vote may be proof of that.  Not running for re-election may have given him the opportunity to vote his conscience rather than political strategy.

The White House’s big breakthrough came yesterday morning, when Warner announced that he had reconsidered. “It’s a change of vote for me,” said Warner, also a former Navy secretary, who will retire next year after completing five terms. “I recognize that.”

Some have said this proposal was an end around the Democratic party’s failure to convince enough GOP members to support surrender again.  It sounds wonderful to give troops a break from combat but not when it really is intended to speed depletion of available troops and thwart victory once again.

That the antiwar crowd continues their destructive message and attempts to convince others their actions support the troops is beyond comprehension.  Unless you understand the antiwar theme is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you can convince enough unsuspecting citizens that you have peaceful or humanitarian intentions the scam will work.  Make enough noise not supporting a war effort and you effectively support the other side, also known as the enemy.  Give the enemy enough incentive to continue a war and you have the self fulfilling prophecy.  If you say the war cannot be won, that we are losing and you support surrender the ability to win is at least hindered or delayed.

That is why the war in Iraq and any future war must be conducted like Desert Storm in 1991.  Get it done before the fringe left antiwar crowd has the opportunity to object.  While there are virtually no comparisons to be made between the 1991 war and the current conflict(s) with the exception of military forces being involved, with trends in terrorism the rules of the game have changed.  Therefore defending this country has just become much more difficult as the antiwar left will always have more time to launch opposition to that defense now that the instant war is less likely.

The ‘war on terror’ whether referring to current armed conflict or future events has complicated national defense options.  In past ‘conventional’ war scenarios armed conflict took place between two or more countries.  Terrorism has blurred the geopolitical nature of war.  Rather than accept the terrorist notion of armed conflict and allow complicit nations to escape responsibility for their involvement, a new method for evaluating national defense options should be adopted.

Every terrorist was born within a geopolitical boundary.  And every terrorist is a resident of some nation.  The national defense options should be based upon which nations produced the terrorists responsible for any act of terror perpetrated against another country.  The nation attacked by terrorists has the right to retaliate against the nation(s) who produced those same terrorists. Perhaps then nations who sponsor terrorism will understand their is a price for them to pay for such behavior.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com