The Party of Defeat

“They were for the war before they were against it.”

“Democrats have never found a war they couldn’t lose.”

The book by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, “The Party of Defeat” can be purchased here.

Video with David Horowitz.

By Phil Orenstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 28, 2008

At no other time in our nation’s history, other than the period of the Civil War when Democrats supported secession and slavery and Republicans championed freedom, have we been so politically divided. Political unity in wartime has always been an article of faith as rival political parties during the Cold War era upheld the axiom “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Bipartisan unity prevailed even during the Vietnam War as both parties supported the war effort for over a decade and were in accord on military withdrawal when victory seemed no longer possible. Whether we are for the war or against it, we can all agree that it should not be used as a political football for the advantage of one political party over another.

Yet for the first time, opposition to the War in Iraq has become an obsessive partisan effort to lose the war and discredit our Commander in Chief. Wartime bipartisanship has been thrown under the bus. The Democratic Party leadership has crossed the line from constitutionally protected dissent and opposition to willful sabotage. The antiwar opposition is not just the radical fringe and loony leftists marching in the streets burning effigies of President Bush, but has now morphed into the Democratic Party in toto. This is the thesis of the new book The Party of Defeat, by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson.

In 2002 the vast majority of Democrats voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq and Senators Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and many other Congressional Democrats made impassioned speeches warning of the “real and grave threat to our security” that we face from Saddam Hussein if the “deadly arsenal of WMD in his hands” is not disarmed. Al Gore vouched for the “secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Soon after the Gulf War II began, and the first operation ended with the triumphant march into Baghdad, Democrats joined in bipartisan unity celebrating the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. However, the pro-war strategy of the Democratic Party soon made a U-turn, as a little known governor, Howard Dean unexpectedly captured the spotlight in the 2004 presidential campaign becoming the Democratic frontrunner as he galvanized the antiwar crowd into a frenzy of Bush hatred and blame America rhetoric.

The Democratic sea change was not prompted by any fact on the ground in Iraq. It was the Dean campaign channeling the mounting rage of antiwar radicals into a political movement of vehement opposition to the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, which triggered the sudden change in Democratic strategy to oppose the war and brand the President a liar and a traitor. Presidential candidates Kerry and Edwards abruptly changed their positions on the war, and the balance of the Democratic leadership vied with one another to show off their new found antiwar credentials.

The Democratic Party crossed the line from mere opposition to undermining a war in progress. They divided the nation in a time of war and emboldened an enemy by proclaiming from the highest offices of our Capitol that President Bush deceived the American people by sending their sons and daughters to die fighting an unjust, unnecessary war for political gain. The antiwar chorus of the 2004 presidential contenders and Democratic leadership thundered to a climax as they vied for the $ millions offered by MoveOn.org, and George Soros and his vast cabal of radical 527 organizations, which deem that America is the enemy.

Senator Kennedy called the war “a catastrophic failure,” and a deliberate fraud telling the press: “There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically.” Kerry attacked the President declaring that “he misled every one of us.” Gore who lost the presidency in 2000 blasted Bush at a Democratic rally for “betraying the nation” by taking us into a war “that was preordained and planned before 9-11.” Rep. John Murtha accused the Marines of killing innocent Iraqis in cold blood.

The deafening chorus of defeat and surrender has continued unabated up until the present day turning a deaf ear to the news of progress on the ground due to the recent successes of the troop surge and defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Still they continue to declare the war unwinnable, illegal and a failure. Senator Edwards called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker slogan” and candidates Clinton and Obama relentlessly call for a premature withdrawal, oblivious to the glowing reports of victories.

General David Petraeus returned from Iraq April 8th to face a hostile reception on Capitol Hill. He delivered a sterling presentation on the growing cooperation of Sunni tribes, the Iraqi people’s desire for freedom, growth of the Iraqi security forces by 100,000 in the past year, sectarian violence down 70% throughout the country since June, decimation of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Iraq’s Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally confronting the Shia militias in Basra trained, funded, and armed by Iran, which had been waiting to explode into mayhem since the recent precipitous withdrawal of British coalition troops.

The bloodshed in Basra is a preview of greater atrocities to come should U.S. forces stage a premature withdrawal as advocated by the Democrats. Petraeus cautioned against such a move saying that the victories are “fragile and reversible” and AQI would rush in to fill the void of a hasty withdrawal should the Democrats prevail.

General Petraeus reported the heartening news of the Anbar Awakening movement which started in the terror capitals of Fallujah and Ramadi and is now spreading throughout the country. A year ago these cities were the most violent places in Iraq. But today the overwhelming majority of residents and Sunni sheikhs renounced their allegiance to AQI and have “now aligned themselves with the Marines and the American-backed city government” realizing that “America is the lesser of evils,” writes Middle East reporter, Michael Totten in City Journal.

The insurgency arose in Fallujah in 2004 after a violent mob mutilated four Blackwater security contractors. U.S. troops launched an assault but quickly retreated, fearing Iraqis would perceive America as oppressive occupiers and violence would spread. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his band of foreign terrorists, al Qaeda in Iraq triumphantly marched in and were welcomed as liberators from the American “occupiers”. But instead of liberating, they seized power in order to establish the Islamic State of Iraq, and imposed Taliban-style rule more oppressive than anything Fallujans had ever encountered. Three years later, Fallujans had had enough and allied themselves with the hated Americans and eventually every tribal sheikh in Anbar came over to the American side. The Anbar Awakening coincided with the troop surge and General Petraeus’s strategy shift to aggressive counterinsurgency operations. Marines are now embedded in Fallujah’s communities, living, eating, studying and patrolling together with the Fallujan security forces. AQI is on the run, normalcy has been restored to Fallujah, violence is virtually nonexistent, and this successful model is being duplicated throughout much of Iraq.

It is apparent that the war is being won in Iraq by our brave men and women soldiers in the United States Military. But the war on the home front that has divided our nation, sabotaged the war effort and undermined our Commander in Chief and America’s moral, rages on and on. These are the great battles to be fought here on the home front by American patriots who dare to challenge the conventional wisdom that the war in Iraq has been lost. This is our challenge to the Democratic Party – the Party of Defeat.

The Party of Defeat

“They were for the war before they were against it.”

“Democrats have never found a war they couldn’t lose.”

The book by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, “The Party of Defeat” can be purchased here.

Video with David Horowitz.

By Phil Orenstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 28, 2008

At no other time in our nation’s history, other than the period of the Civil War when Democrats supported secession and slavery and Republicans championed freedom, have we been so politically divided. Political unity in wartime has always been an article of faith as rival political parties during the Cold War era upheld the axiom “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Bipartisan unity prevailed even during the Vietnam War as both parties supported the war effort for over a decade and were in accord on military withdrawal when victory seemed no longer possible. Whether we are for the war or against it, we can all agree that it should not be used as a political football for the advantage of one political party over another.

Yet for the first time, opposition to the War in Iraq has become an obsessive partisan effort to lose the war and discredit our Commander in Chief. Wartime bipartisanship has been thrown under the bus. The Democratic Party leadership has crossed the line from constitutionally protected dissent and opposition to willful sabotage. The antiwar opposition is not just the radical fringe and loony leftists marching in the streets burning effigies of President Bush, but has now morphed into the Democratic Party in toto. This is the thesis of the new book The Party of Defeat, by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson.

In 2002 the vast majority of Democrats voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq and Senators Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and many other Congressional Democrats made impassioned speeches warning of the “real and grave threat to our security” that we face from Saddam Hussein if the “deadly arsenal of WMD in his hands” is not disarmed. Al Gore vouched for the “secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Soon after the Gulf War II began, and the first operation ended with the triumphant march into Baghdad, Democrats joined in bipartisan unity celebrating the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. However, the pro-war strategy of the Democratic Party soon made a U-turn, as a little known governor, Howard Dean unexpectedly captured the spotlight in the 2004 presidential campaign becoming the Democratic frontrunner as he galvanized the antiwar crowd into a frenzy of Bush hatred and blame America rhetoric.

The Democratic sea change was not prompted by any fact on the ground in Iraq. It was the Dean campaign channeling the mounting rage of antiwar radicals into a political movement of vehement opposition to the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, which triggered the sudden change in Democratic strategy to oppose the war and brand the President a liar and a traitor. Presidential candidates Kerry and Edwards abruptly changed their positions on the war, and the balance of the Democratic leadership vied with one another to show off their new found antiwar credentials.

The Democratic Party crossed the line from mere opposition to undermining a war in progress. They divided the nation in a time of war and emboldened an enemy by proclaiming from the highest offices of our Capitol that President Bush deceived the American people by sending their sons and daughters to die fighting an unjust, unnecessary war for political gain. The antiwar chorus of the 2004 presidential contenders and Democratic leadership thundered to a climax as they vied for the $ millions offered by MoveOn.org, and George Soros and his vast cabal of radical 527 organizations, which deem that America is the enemy.

Senator Kennedy called the war “a catastrophic failure,” and a deliberate fraud telling the press: “There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically.” Kerry attacked the President declaring that “he misled every one of us.” Gore who lost the presidency in 2000 blasted Bush at a Democratic rally for “betraying the nation” by taking us into a war “that was preordained and planned before 9-11.” Rep. John Murtha accused the Marines of killing innocent Iraqis in cold blood.

The deafening chorus of defeat and surrender has continued unabated up until the present day turning a deaf ear to the news of progress on the ground due to the recent successes of the troop surge and defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Still they continue to declare the war unwinnable, illegal and a failure. Senator Edwards called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker slogan” and candidates Clinton and Obama relentlessly call for a premature withdrawal, oblivious to the glowing reports of victories.

General David Petraeus returned from Iraq April 8th to face a hostile reception on Capitol Hill. He delivered a sterling presentation on the growing cooperation of Sunni tribes, the Iraqi people’s desire for freedom, growth of the Iraqi security forces by 100,000 in the past year, sectarian violence down 70% throughout the country since June, decimation of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Iraq’s Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally confronting the Shia militias in Basra trained, funded, and armed by Iran, which had been waiting to explode into mayhem since the recent precipitous withdrawal of British coalition troops.

The bloodshed in Basra is a preview of greater atrocities to come should U.S. forces stage a premature withdrawal as advocated by the Democrats. Petraeus cautioned against such a move saying that the victories are “fragile and reversible” and AQI would rush in to fill the void of a hasty withdrawal should the Democrats prevail.

General Petraeus reported the heartening news of the Anbar Awakening movement which started in the terror capitals of Fallujah and Ramadi and is now spreading throughout the country. A year ago these cities were the most violent places in Iraq. But today the overwhelming majority of residents and Sunni sheikhs renounced their allegiance to AQI and have “now aligned themselves with the Marines and the American-backed city government” realizing that “America is the lesser of evils,” writes Middle East reporter, Michael Totten in City Journal.

The insurgency arose in Fallujah in 2004 after a violent mob mutilated four Blackwater security contractors. U.S. troops launched an assault but quickly retreated, fearing Iraqis would perceive America as oppressive occupiers and violence would spread. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his band of foreign terrorists, al Qaeda in Iraq triumphantly marched in and were welcomed as liberators from the American “occupiers”. But instead of liberating, they seized power in order to establish the Islamic State of Iraq, and imposed Taliban-style rule more oppressive than anything Fallujans had ever encountered. Three years later, Fallujans had had enough and allied themselves with the hated Americans and eventually every tribal sheikh in Anbar came over to the American side. The Anbar Awakening coincided with the troop surge and General Petraeus’s strategy shift to aggressive counterinsurgency operations. Marines are now embedded in Fallujah’s communities, living, eating, studying and patrolling together with the Fallujan security forces. AQI is on the run, normalcy has been restored to Fallujah, violence is virtually nonexistent, and this successful model is being duplicated throughout much of Iraq.

It is apparent that the war is being won in Iraq by our brave men and women soldiers in the United States Military. But the war on the home front that has divided our nation, sabotaged the war effort and undermined our Commander in Chief and America’s moral, rages on and on. These are the great battles to be fought here on the home front by American patriots who dare to challenge the conventional wisdom that the war in Iraq has been lost. This is our challenge to the Democratic Party – the Party of Defeat.

Come Home to Baghdad–Muslims to Christians

The post below was cross posted by my friend Spree. The BEGINNING of this story is here in Spree’s post entitled “Why We Do What We Do” here and my post entitled “Hope, Thanks and Praise-Michael Yon” here.

A reminder from those posts–the incredible picture of a muslim man polishing and mounting the cross atop the church, St. John’s Catholic Church (this picture gets my vote for the Pulitzer). THESE ARE THE STORIES WE NEED TO HEAR MORE OF AND THE MSM WILL NEVER PUBLISH--but we here in the blogosphere are delighted to bring them to you.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Michael Yon does it again. He captures in pictures and in words the mood of Baghdad. It isn’t the Baghdad under a brutal dictator. It isn’t the Baghdad that was suffering last year with violence.

It is a new Baghdad and the Muslims in Baghdad are telling their Christian friends and neighbors that it is time to come home.

(Click image to see the Democrats finally being honest about NOT supporting the troops)
(Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”)

Michael Yon:

I can’t remember my last shootout: it’s been months. The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it’s time to come home. And the Christians are saying it’s time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.

Go to Yon’s site and see the whole wonderful piece, the pictures tell a story of a country rebuilding and what I have shown you here is but a small fraction of what he has there.

Remember, over 3,000 families have already returned to Baghdad, Iraq and they are encoraging the rest of Iraqi’s to do the same.

Moving along here to what is left of al-Qaeda and the Strategy Page shows us that they are more worried about surviving now than they are about those “spectacular” attacks that get blasted across the news to make Americans think they are winning in Iraq:

As the surge offensive continued to tear apart the terrorist infrastructure, the leaders put the organization into survival mode. Planning and carrying out attacks became less important than keeping remaining leaders and key people out of jail, or a grave. This is why the number of terror attacks has plummeted. The remnants of al Qaeda have fled to northern Iraq, around Mosul and areas near the Iranian border. If worse comes to worse, the terrorists know they can flee into Iran, and have a chance of bargaining their way out of an Iranian jail. Within Iraq, however, capture is either a long jail sentence, or execution. Al Qaeda is the most hated organization in the country, and may have to abandon Iraq altogether if the pressure doesn’t ease up.

[…]

If al Qaeda cannot go dark and rebuild, they will have to abandon Iraq. That is almost unthinkable, because al Qaeda has, since 2003, declared Iraq to be “the graveyard of the Crusaders.” To admit defeat in Iraq would be a tremendous blow to al Qaeda operations elsewhere. The organization is already weakened by the failure to carry out any more operations in the United States since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has been shut down in so many other areas as well. But it looks like Iraq may be the last stand, and the last straw.

Note to al-Qaeda in Iraq: Rot in hell you bastards, despite the past 40 attempts, and yesterdays 41st attempt, from the Democrats in our country to hand you a victory in Iraq, you have failed, they have failed and the Iraqi people have won and want no more to do with you.

As news such as this finally gets reported to the American people, support is rising and after 6 months the number of people that believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well has risen to 44%, according to Politico which quotes the newest Pew figures.

That said, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well, a high point in the past year, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group.

At the same time, CBS News polling has found U.S. opposition to Bush’s troop surge softening a bit.

As for the Democrats (Pelosi, Reid and Company) that would like to abandon those Iraqi’s shown above and all that are not shown, abandon them when things are going undeniably well, you can go to hell too and take your defeatist friends with you.

[UPDATE] The Democrats finally admit the truth: They DON’T support the troops.

B. Relevant is also spreading the truth about Iraq….check it out.

Come Home to Baghdad–Muslims to Christians

The post below was cross posted by my friend Spree. The BEGINNING of this story is here in Spree’s post entitled “Why We Do What We Do” here and my post entitled “Hope, Thanks and Praise-Michael Yon” here.

A reminder from those posts–the incredible picture of a muslim man polishing and mounting the cross atop the church, St. John’s Catholic Church (this picture gets my vote for the Pulitzer). THESE ARE THE STORIES WE NEED TO HEAR MORE OF AND THE MSM WILL NEVER PUBLISH--but we here in the blogosphere are delighted to bring them to you.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Michael Yon does it again. He captures in pictures and in words the mood of Baghdad. It isn’t the Baghdad under a brutal dictator. It isn’t the Baghdad that was suffering last year with violence.

It is a new Baghdad and the Muslims in Baghdad are telling their Christian friends and neighbors that it is time to come home.

(Click image to see the Democrats finally being honest about NOT supporting the troops)
(Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”)

Michael Yon:

I can’t remember my last shootout: it’s been months. The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it’s time to come home. And the Christians are saying it’s time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.

Go to Yon’s site and see the whole wonderful piece, the pictures tell a story of a country rebuilding and what I have shown you here is but a small fraction of what he has there.

Remember, over 3,000 families have already returned to Baghdad, Iraq and they are encoraging the rest of Iraqi’s to do the same.

Moving along here to what is left of al-Qaeda and the Strategy Page shows us that they are more worried about surviving now than they are about those “spectacular” attacks that get blasted across the news to make Americans think they are winning in Iraq:

As the surge offensive continued to tear apart the terrorist infrastructure, the leaders put the organization into survival mode. Planning and carrying out attacks became less important than keeping remaining leaders and key people out of jail, or a grave. This is why the number of terror attacks has plummeted. The remnants of al Qaeda have fled to northern Iraq, around Mosul and areas near the Iranian border. If worse comes to worse, the terrorists know they can flee into Iran, and have a chance of bargaining their way out of an Iranian jail. Within Iraq, however, capture is either a long jail sentence, or execution. Al Qaeda is the most hated organization in the country, and may have to abandon Iraq altogether if the pressure doesn’t ease up.

[…]

If al Qaeda cannot go dark and rebuild, they will have to abandon Iraq. That is almost unthinkable, because al Qaeda has, since 2003, declared Iraq to be “the graveyard of the Crusaders.” To admit defeat in Iraq would be a tremendous blow to al Qaeda operations elsewhere. The organization is already weakened by the failure to carry out any more operations in the United States since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has been shut down in so many other areas as well. But it looks like Iraq may be the last stand, and the last straw.

Note to al-Qaeda in Iraq: Rot in hell you bastards, despite the past 40 attempts, and yesterdays 41st attempt, from the Democrats in our country to hand you a victory in Iraq, you have failed, they have failed and the Iraqi people have won and want no more to do with you.

As news such as this finally gets reported to the American people, support is rising and after 6 months the number of people that believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well has risen to 44%, according to Politico which quotes the newest Pew figures.

That said, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well, a high point in the past year, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group.

At the same time, CBS News polling has found U.S. opposition to Bush’s troop surge softening a bit.

As for the Democrats (Pelosi, Reid and Company) that would like to abandon those Iraqi’s shown above and all that are not shown, abandon them when things are going undeniably well, you can go to hell too and take your defeatist friends with you.

[UPDATE] The Democrats finally admit the truth: They DON’T support the troops.

B. Relevant is also spreading the truth about Iraq….check it out.

Defeatism Rhetoric Losing OOMPH!!

Cross-posted by request-Snooper

In a previous post I placed on various blogs, Moonbats Retreating, it seems that the prediction I espoused is coming true. Gee. I just may be psychotic. Oh. Wait. That SHOULD have been psychic. I get those two terms confused at times. Or, it may very well be that I didn’t believe the majority of Americans went along with the nut-roots of the Defeatist Socialists that pined and yearned for a defeat in the GWOT. A defeat, they hoped, would sky-rocket them into the political helm for decades to come.

As the scenario unfolds before us, we see that the landslide victories they wet-dreamed over will be going in the other direction. Americans have tired of the ReidCo Rhetoric of Doom and Gloom when the evidence so overwhelmingly drowns out the Woe Is Me Crowds. The Silent Majority has awakened and the Defeatists tremble in fear. They have grown accustomed to us rolling over in the name of Play Nice-Nice. Not any longer.

I see it in the light of the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who said, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve“, in the aftermath which was accomplished at Pearl Harbor. The Silent Majority resolve is a rising Conservative Tsunami…reminiscent of a Reaganesque occurrence.

The Socialist Liberal has awakened a sleeping conservative movement and has filled us with a terrible resolve.

Publius Pundit has a piece of substance from a while back here.

Thomas Sewell has a grand article here at RCP today. It begins with all so “telling” statement.

If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.

Just so. Go read the rest of the article but before you go, here is a teaser.

One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’ September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate Congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

The above statements paint an ugly picture for ReidCo and a picture perfect for Patriots.

Many, MANY, Bloggers have expressed the EXACT SAME SENTIMENTS as expressed in this article.

• A Proud Infidel
• AubreyJ
• Beyond Rhetoric
• Black Drum
• Bob’s Human
• Cincinatti Conservative
• Do The Right Thing
• Fault Line USA
• Gazing At The Flag
• Jacksonian
• Keeper
• Miss Beth’s Stomping Grounds
• Miss Beth’s Victory Dance
• Miss Ladybug
• Over The Hill Gang
• Paranoia Watch
• Perish The Thought
• Right In A Left World
• Right Winger
• Sacred Cow Crossing
• Sunshine Patriots
• Take Our Country Back
• The Bull Speaks out
• The Defeat Caucus
• To The Right Of Center
• TVC
• Wake Up Americans
• While You’re At It
• Yankeemom

Just pick one and go for it.

• 101st Airborne Blogroll
• Appeal For Courage
• Black Five
• Boots In Baghdad
• Captain’s Quarters
• Confederate Yankee
• Flopping Aces
• Just A Marine
• Michael Yon
• Mudville Gazette
• One Marine’s View
• OpFor
• Q and O Blog
• TBone’s War Journal
• The Fourth Rail-Roggio
• Yankee Mom

O’Hanlon: “Fight with facts, not innuendo, I say!”
The Democrats Want You…to shut your traps
NY Times Reports and Prints Story from the Right
MoveOn.org Needs to Just Move on
O Ye of Little Faith
There’s more than numbers for those who want to understand
10,000+ to Take to Streets to Support U.S. Troops & Their Mission in Iraq
What a joke
Australian Pride or Multi-Culturalism/Diversity Can Take a Flying Leap!

Have fun reading. I did.

Defeatism Rhetoric Losing OOMPH!!

Cross-posted by request-Snooper

In a previous post I placed on various blogs, Moonbats Retreating, it seems that the prediction I espoused is coming true. Gee. I just may be psychotic. Oh. Wait. That SHOULD have been psychic. I get those two terms confused at times. Or, it may very well be that I didn’t believe the majority of Americans went along with the nut-roots of the Defeatist Socialists that pined and yearned for a defeat in the GWOT. A defeat, they hoped, would sky-rocket them into the political helm for decades to come.

As the scenario unfolds before us, we see that the landslide victories they wet-dreamed over will be going in the other direction. Americans have tired of the ReidCo Rhetoric of Doom and Gloom when the evidence so overwhelmingly drowns out the Woe Is Me Crowds. The Silent Majority has awakened and the Defeatists tremble in fear. They have grown accustomed to us rolling over in the name of Play Nice-Nice. Not any longer.

I see it in the light of the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who said, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve“, in the aftermath which was accomplished at Pearl Harbor. The Silent Majority resolve is a rising Conservative Tsunami…reminiscent of a Reaganesque occurrence.

The Socialist Liberal has awakened a sleeping conservative movement and has filled us with a terrible resolve.

Publius Pundit has a piece of substance from a while back here.

Thomas Sewell has a grand article here at RCP today. It begins with all so “telling” statement.

If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.

Just so. Go read the rest of the article but before you go, here is a teaser.

One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’ September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate Congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

The above statements paint an ugly picture for ReidCo and a picture perfect for Patriots.

Many, MANY, Bloggers have expressed the EXACT SAME SENTIMENTS as expressed in this article.

• A Proud Infidel
• AubreyJ
• Beyond Rhetoric
• Black Drum
• Bob’s Human
• Cincinatti Conservative
• Do The Right Thing
• Fault Line USA
• Gazing At The Flag
• Jacksonian
• Keeper
• Miss Beth’s Stomping Grounds
• Miss Beth’s Victory Dance
• Miss Ladybug
• Over The Hill Gang
• Paranoia Watch
• Perish The Thought
• Right In A Left World
• Right Winger
• Sacred Cow Crossing
• Sunshine Patriots
• Take Our Country Back
• The Bull Speaks out
• The Defeat Caucus
• To The Right Of Center
• TVC
• Wake Up Americans
• While You’re At It
• Yankeemom

Just pick one and go for it.

• 101st Airborne Blogroll
• Appeal For Courage
• Black Five
• Boots In Baghdad
• Captain’s Quarters
• Confederate Yankee
• Flopping Aces
• Just A Marine
• Michael Yon
• Mudville Gazette
• One Marine’s View
• OpFor
• Q and O Blog
• TBone’s War Journal
• The Fourth Rail-Roggio
• Yankee Mom

O’Hanlon: “Fight with facts, not innuendo, I say!”
The Democrats Want You…to shut your traps
NY Times Reports and Prints Story from the Right
MoveOn.org Needs to Just Move on
O Ye of Little Faith
There’s more than numbers for those who want to understand
10,000+ to Take to Streets to Support U.S. Troops & Their Mission in Iraq
What a joke
Australian Pride or Multi-Culturalism/Diversity Can Take a Flying Leap!

Have fun reading. I did.

The "600,000 Iraq Death Toll" Debunked…..Again?

New Critique of the Lancet’s Civilian Death Claims

In 2004, British medical journal The Lancet released a study in the final days leading up to the US presidential election. Their attempted October Surprise was heavily promoted by international media and the international left (there’s a difference?), and claimed the US was responsible for more than 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Then, in 2006, they published another study with even more wildly inflated claims.

Today Michelle Malkin has posted a new critique of the Lancet’s 2004 study, a statistical analysis by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University—who identifies serious problems in the Lancet’s methodology: Document drop: A new critique of the 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study.

Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane’s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors “cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.” Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors’ main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.

An interesting side note: as Kane observes in his paper, the Lancet authors “refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology).” The researchers did release some high-level summary data in highly aggregated form (see here), but they released neither the detailed interviewee-level data nor the programming code that would be necessary to replicate their results.

Note: Of course the left will refute any new statistical analysis of the Lancet Study regarding the claimed 600,000 Iraq death toll.

Clarity in analyzing studies is a primary goal of any researcher and should be part of the critical analysis of a given subject overall.

The fact that the Lancet Study has been refuted in the past, due largely to their refusal to provide the data they used for drawing their conclusions should immediately produce “red flags” with regard to unbiased truth and authenticity. Yet today this study is widely accepted as fact.

Critical thinking supported by all…..I say again ALL the…factual data and then made readily available to researchers leads to clarity on any subject.

So draw your own conclusions.

In my opinion, the Lancet Study is seriously flawed in it’s attempt to provide a meaningful analysis of the actual data available. As has been stated elsewhere…2 + 2 does NOT equal 5, at least not in any of the math classes I had while studying Electrical Engineering……….

Dean

The "600,000 Iraq Death Toll" Debunked…..Again?

New Critique of the Lancet’s Civilian Death Claims

In 2004, British medical journal The Lancet released a study in the final days leading up to the US presidential election. Their attempted October Surprise was heavily promoted by international media and the international left (there’s a difference?), and claimed the US was responsible for more than 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Then, in 2006, they published another study with even more wildly inflated claims.

Today Michelle Malkin has posted a new critique of the Lancet’s 2004 study, a statistical analysis by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University—who identifies serious problems in the Lancet’s methodology: Document drop: A new critique of the 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study.

Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane’s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors “cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.” Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors’ main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.

An interesting side note: as Kane observes in his paper, the Lancet authors “refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology).” The researchers did release some high-level summary data in highly aggregated form (see here), but they released neither the detailed interviewee-level data nor the programming code that would be necessary to replicate their results.

Note: Of course the left will refute any new statistical analysis of the Lancet Study regarding the claimed 600,000 Iraq death toll.

Clarity in analyzing studies is a primary goal of any researcher and should be part of the critical analysis of a given subject overall.

The fact that the Lancet Study has been refuted in the past, due largely to their refusal to provide the data they used for drawing their conclusions should immediately produce “red flags” with regard to unbiased truth and authenticity. Yet today this study is widely accepted as fact.

Critical thinking supported by all…..I say again ALL the…factual data and then made readily available to researchers leads to clarity on any subject.

So draw your own conclusions.

In my opinion, the Lancet Study is seriously flawed in it’s attempt to provide a meaningful analysis of the actual data available. As has been stated elsewhere…2 + 2 does NOT equal 5, at least not in any of the math classes I had while studying Electrical Engineering……….

Dean

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support

I’ve saved the BEST news for last, though (at least, last at this time). It must really, REALLY piss of pelosi, reid, murtha, clinton, durbin, et. al., that Baghdad is asking us to stay.

The link to the story is here. The entire text is below:

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support
By ANNE FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – Worried Congress’ support for
Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential on the war debate. On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

“He understands that American patience is waning,” said Sen. Norm Coleman, after eating lunch with Saleh, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie and Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

But the lobbying by the Iraqis isn’t the only pressure-point being applied in Washington.

Clinton said Friday she considered it “promising” that several Republican House members went to the White House and told President Bush they believe the continuing war is adversely affecting the party.

She said the GOP lawmakers told Bush pointblank that “he has to change course in Iraq.” But she also said she didn’t think that Bush was ready to reverse course.

“I think we’re going to go back and forth on this for a while longer,” Clinton said in an interview Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program with Joe Scarborough.

“It is clear that whatever the mission used to be, it is either accomplished or over,” she said. “If there are remaining American interests, then let’s spell them out.”

Baghdad’s ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president’s decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited.

Coleman, Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year — facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops. While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach.

With the clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the “imperative of success” in Iraq.

“Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict” against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie’s visit on Tuesday.
The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail. Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don’t want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid.

The House voted 221-205 Thursday for a stronger measure that would fund the war only through July, giving Congress the option of cutting off money after that. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, although it indicates the war’s unpopularity among members and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

The most recent irritant among U.S. lawmakers was a report that Iraqi officials would break for two months this summer.

“Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we’re over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. … And the Iraqi answer? We’re taking a summer off. Goin’ fishing,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do “not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess.”

Democrats seemed to consider these meetings with Iraqi officials as beneficial — if only to convey their frustration to Iraqi officials in person.

Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said the senator told Saleh that “U.S. patience, blood and treasure were not unlimited and that the Congress would be taking a more decisive role in the coming weeks and months.”

“Salih understood the point, and said he would deliver the message to the Iraqi cabinet,” Manley added.

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support

I’ve saved the BEST news for last, though (at least, last at this time). It must really, REALLY piss of pelosi, reid, murtha, clinton, durbin, et. al., that Baghdad is asking us to stay.

The link to the story is here. The entire text is below:

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support
By ANNE FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – Worried Congress’ support for
Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential on the war debate. On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

“He understands that American patience is waning,” said Sen. Norm Coleman, after eating lunch with Saleh, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie and Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

But the lobbying by the Iraqis isn’t the only pressure-point being applied in Washington.

Clinton said Friday she considered it “promising” that several Republican House members went to the White House and told President Bush they believe the continuing war is adversely affecting the party.

She said the GOP lawmakers told Bush pointblank that “he has to change course in Iraq.” But she also said she didn’t think that Bush was ready to reverse course.

“I think we’re going to go back and forth on this for a while longer,” Clinton said in an interview Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program with Joe Scarborough.

“It is clear that whatever the mission used to be, it is either accomplished or over,” she said. “If there are remaining American interests, then let’s spell them out.”

Baghdad’s ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president’s decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited.

Coleman, Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year — facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops. While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach.

With the clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the “imperative of success” in Iraq.

“Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict” against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie’s visit on Tuesday.
The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail. Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don’t want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid.

The House voted 221-205 Thursday for a stronger measure that would fund the war only through July, giving Congress the option of cutting off money after that. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, although it indicates the war’s unpopularity among members and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

The most recent irritant among U.S. lawmakers was a report that Iraqi officials would break for two months this summer.

“Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we’re over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. … And the Iraqi answer? We’re taking a summer off. Goin’ fishing,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do “not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess.”

Democrats seemed to consider these meetings with Iraqi officials as beneficial — if only to convey their frustration to Iraqi officials in person.

Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said the senator told Saleh that “U.S. patience, blood and treasure were not unlimited and that the Congress would be taking a more decisive role in the coming weeks and months.”

“Salih understood the point, and said he would deliver the message to the Iraqi cabinet,” Manley added.

&title=&blog=bs”>