Bush in Iraq

The Bush administration has seen it’s fair share of good news in the last few weeks. Well deserved good news too.

In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.

The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a big one. That guy has been responsible for so much violence in Iraq, it’s great seeing him bite the dust.

With Zarqawi dead, a new Baghdad government in place and Rove freed from prosecutor’s cross hairs, the White House hopes it can pivot to a new stage in which it is no longer on the defensive. In recent weeks, under new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, the White House has tried to do more to set an agenda, moving aggressively into the immigration debate and agreeing to join direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program under certain conditions.

Anyway, Bush made a “secret” visit to Iraq yesterday. Some think he may be laying the groundwork for troop reductions in Iraq. I don’t really see that though. To me it seems to be more of a pep-rally sort of thing. Bush was there letting everyone know that we need to stay until the job is done. Or at least until the Iraqi forces are able to handle the insurgents on their own. Even when the Iraqi forces are ready, we should still maintain a military force in the country, just to ensure the job is done right. It’d be terribly depressing if the country fell into a civil war or something once the U.S. packs up and leaves. In my eyes, we need to have a decent number of troops there for the next 50 years, just to protect our investment. “Our investment” being the nation of Iraq itself, not their oil.

Flopping Aces has some nice pictures and a video. Hot Air also has the video and a link to the transcript from Bush’s speech.

Others blogging include:
Blogs for Bush
California Conservative
Big Dog’s Weblog

George Galloway Justifies Murder of Tony Blair

Bush and Blair have decided to “Concede Missteps on Iraq.” Hot Air has a video of the news conference.

In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate “tough talk” — such as saying “bring ‘em on” in reference to insurgents — that he said “sent the wrong signal to people.” He also said the “biggest mistake” for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. “We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time,” he said.

George Galloway used this as an opportunity to attack Tony Blair, saying “it would be entirely logical and explicable” for him to die via suicide bomber. Galloway is obviously off his rocker. The fact that he even suggests a suicide bombing to kill Blair is sick. Let’s face it, suicide bombings are a pretty sleazy and cowardly way to take a life.

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”

Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”

Whose side are you on Galloway? Wait, I don’t think you should answer that. Decision ’08 asks a good question, “George Galloway: Human Or Snake?”

Sister Toldjah is wondering if Galloway can be censured in front of the Parliament for his remarks. I would certainly think so, wether any action is actually taken against Galloway is probably up for debate.

Cold Fury dropped a great analogy in their Galloway post:

Listening to Leftard hero/terrorist-loving blowhard George Galloway talk about ethics and morals is roughly akin to listening to Ronald McDonald opine about fine wines and filet mignon.

Stop the ACLU 2/16/06 BlogBurst: Part Deux

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU.

We have two recent press releases from the ACLU.

1. Gut National Security! We all know about the ACLU’s lawsuit against NSA, its FOIA request over it, and its constant urging of Congress for full disclosure of what should be classified information.

The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to adopt several resolutions that would formally request any and all documents relating to the illegal National Security Agency domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.

“The need for a comprehensive investigation into the NSA’s domestic surveillance is essential to find out exactly which laws were broken,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.”

Notice that while they use the word “illegal”, and insist that laws were broken, they don’t even know exactly what laws were broken. WTF? I thought that in America that everyone was considered innocent until proven guilty, but all of the sudden per ACLU the government is guilty
until proven innocent. The way the program is was explained, according to all lawyers that worked in this field, it is completely legal because it falls under the powers of the Executive branch. The President’s job is to protect the Nation, wage war when appropriate,
and in this case approve by Congress when they said, “use any appropriate force necessary.” It is also the Executive branch’s authority to collect international intelligence, and the president
does not need Congress’ approval. This comes under the “seperation of powers”, despite the fact that Congress does not like this. This is a never ending battle between the Congress and the Executive branch. Congress thinks that everything has to be run past it. When Congress
says that it is the Executive branch that is trying to grab power….think….it is Congress that is actually the one trying to grab power for themselves.

If this were the only government effort to protect Americans that the ACLU opposed, one could easily write it off as a misguided pursuit of an absolutist ideaology of liberty. However, the ACLU seems to have a problem with everything dealing with National Security. They oppose
the Patritot Act, airline security measures, searches across the board, and much more.

But lets get down to the real agenda.

To the ACLU, CIA means “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.” That’s the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. “Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies” would be a more appropriate
title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.

“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America’s national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific
criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union’s Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all “covert action,” most “clandestine intelligence” gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has
been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to
us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

2. Enrage America’s enemies. Anything that enrages America’s enemies, the ACLU wants on the front pages of all the MSM’s newspapers.

In response to newly released images of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the American Civil Liberties Union today renewed its call for an independent investigation into widespread and systemic abuse in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

Despite the fact that this is old news recylcled, the ACLU have pushed for more fuel to the hate America crowd’s fire. I say, let’s release the photos, so that those who rioted over simple 4 month old cartoons can completely destroy themselves. Either the ACLU has no concern
over anti-American consequences to further release of an incident that took place over a year ago, or they are seeking anti-American rage to increase. Their position on this is at best irresponsible, and at worse prodding an already raging bull.

The ACLU has sued the Department of Defense for withholding photographs and videos depicting abuse at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities. In September, a federal judge in New York ruled that the government must turn over the Abu Ghraib images, as
well as other visual evidence of abuse, noting “the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.” The decision is currently on appeal by the government. The ACLU said it does not
know whether the new photos aired by the Australian “Dateline” program are the same photos being withheld by the government.

Investigations and punishment for these abuses are something we definitely agree with the ACLU on. However, the release of more gruesome photos to the public, running on front pages of magazines and newspapers does not serve any good, other than to further the hate of
our enemies. More than 25 people of both enlisted and commissioned rank were held accountable for criminal acts and other misconduct associated with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Several pictures appear to show U.S. soldier Charles Graner, who was jailed for 10 years for his leading role in the Abu Ghraib abuse. Many of these photos are even suspect of being hoaxes.

The Abu Ghraib abuses were discovered by U.S. troops and were being investigated before any of the photos were leaked to the press. None of this matters to the media and ACLU. Congress members have already seen the additional photos, and investigations and prosecutions have been launched. There is nothing positive about releasing these photos to the public, and no productive purpose other than fanning the flames of hate.

While there is major hypocrisy in the MSM response to the Abu Ghraib photos in comparison to the Danish cartoons, both are protected freedoms. While many called for solidarity with the Danish over freedom of expression, this was in response to the savage reactions of riots, and embassy burnings from Muslims. The release of more photos from Abu Ghraib to the general public serves no such purpose. They reveal nothing new or informative that we have not already seen. They have no significance other than anti-American propaganda purposes.

3. Defend America’s enemies.

The list is endless on this one. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives.

They have refused contributions from some of their most loyal donors because of anti-terrorism specifics.

The ACLU, in every position it takes in National Security issues, proves time and again to be against American interests. When you combine all of these things, is there any wonder why so many Americans question who’s side the ACLU is on?

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board

Iraq’s Parliamentary Election (Updated)

Iraqis are voting in what some say is the most important election yet. The Sunnis, who boycotted the parliamentary election in January ’04, are expected to turn out in droves for this election. 1000 or so Sunni clerics issued fatwas urging their followers to participate in this election.

More than 1,000 Sunni clerics issued a religious decree, or fatwa , urging their followers to vote, rallying what is expected to be a massive turnout by Sunnis, who widely obeyed the clerics’ instructions to boycott parliamentary elections in January.


Bill Roggio is on the ground in Iraq, go check it out for some election coverage right from the source. There’s lots of purple finger photos floating in the blogosphere right now. Iraqis have an impressive amount of support coming from U.S. bloggers and bloggers throughout the world. The large list of bloggers below wishing Iraqis the best is a prime example. I can’t believe we’ve made this much progress in such short time. Other bloggers:
Iraq the Model
Stop the ACLU
No End But Victory
American Future
Ankle Biting Pundits
The Indepundit
American Warmonger
Michelle Malkin
Outside The Beltway
In The Bullpen
Conservative Thinking

UPDATE: Brian at Iowa Voice has an update noting the apparently spetacular success of the Iraqi elections. It’s estimated that up to 15 million Iraqis voted! The CIA World Factbook estimates the population of Iraq to be about 26 million. That number coming from back in July 2005, so it’s pretty recent. That’s 57% voter turnout, but all of those 26 million aren’t registered voters, so, I dunno. Really, there can’t be much more than 20 million Iraqis of the age to vote. That puts the voter turnout close to 75%, I’d say that’s a pretty impressive show.

Katie Couric Interviews Ramsey Clark

After watching that interview, I can safely say that Ramsey Clark believes every word Saddam says. Whatever Saddam says, Ramsey Clark takes it as fact. He’s more of a puppet than I thought he was. There was some undisputable senility in Ramsey’s talking too, poor old fella. I’d think one would need to be senile, at the very least, to defend Saddam though, so it makes sense.

Ramsey is a little too worried about Saddam’s civil rights. Saddam doesn’t have civil rights anymore. It’s a known fact that he’s had a hand in murdering at the very least hundreds of people. I know he’s got basic civil rights, but those shouldn’t even be granted to him. Money shouldn’t be wasted on a trial. All that’s required is a bullet, I’ll fuckin buy it. Shit, I’ll buy a whole clip.

NewsBusters has some of the interview in text. The Political Teen has the video of the interview. The NewsBusters video seems to be pointing to a bunch of Google AdSense ads right now…

Also, Greg at The Political Pit Bull thinks he might be too young to fully understand the evils perpetrated by Saddam. He’s got a link to an article by Cliff May that sheds some light for we young bucks.

Jihad Watch has named Ramsey Clark as “The American Dhimmi of the Year 2005.” A very well deserved title for Mr. Clark.