FROM THE AMERICAN THINKER

April 12, 2008

•


The Success of Iraq Policy
By Jim Hall
Contrary to the dominant media narrative, the Iraq war is working out as a global strategic success, albeit not to a comfortable time schedule or cost. A Walter Cronkite-type surrender won't be necessary, this time. America had the strength to endure, analyze, correct and advance the mission. America will be the global can-do superpower once again. Europe and the Middle East have seen this light.

The rough edges of the Iraq war have inspired negative rhetoric and carefully considered judgments that the war has been a total loss. The critics cite the turmoil, scramble, expense and destruction that is part of any large scale military action, and conclude that even minimal amounts war chaos are unacceptable and were unnecessary; any cost is too costly; the effort has been a failure.

Rough edges there have been, all along. But the attempt to proclaim the mission a failure has been inaccurate and shortsighted. It discounts as worthless potential future benefits of a global strategy that were reasonably probable, if not certain. It discounts insurance functions that only poor management of American life and limb would neglect. It discounts the capacity of the American system to plan and build for strategic success, assuming any misstep represents conceptual failure.

The Iraq war had to be conducted in a politically acceptable manner. It was. From Saddam's broken UN resolutions, to GWB's permission slip from the UN and the U.S. Congress, to the offer for Saddam to leave and avoid conflict, to efforts to take out Saddam individually before the larger invasion became a reality, the plan covered most bases.

The problems may well have come from conducting the war with such a degree of political correctness. The administration had to consider so carefully the anticipated concerns of the United Nations and world community. Broken resolutions against that body by Saddam counted for far less than the disapproval of any forceful attempt at enforcement of the resolutions. The UN's low level of respect and perceived effectiveness is well deserved.

The administration considered the concerns of the Iraqi National Congress, a group of concerned Iraqi expatriate experts on abuses by Saddam, and the issues of high priority to most of the sectarian groups in Iraq. It considered historical precedent, including the 1991 invasion, if not matching its coalition members in quantity. It considered concerns of critics who would demand evidence nearly courtroom-tight, before taking forceful means toward resolution enforcement. It considered minimizing collateral damage to greatest extent this concept has ever been considered. The administration considered how to remove Saddam without ground forces ever having to enter the country (take him out in a strategic air strike). It considered, and instructed the Iraqi army on what to do when and if the invasion were to occur, in order to preserve the lives of Iraqi officers and soldiers, and the Iraqi military as an institution.

The administration did not, however, consider the concerns or preferences of the League of Democracies. There isn't one, yet. It didn't consider planning issues related to conquering the country in Nazi lock-down style. It didn't consider a replacement for the entire Iraqi police force in case that Iraqi force proved to be totally incompetent, or even negatively effective. It didn't consider what to do if the advice offered to the Iraqi army went further than planned, to the point of Iraqi soldiers removing their uniforms and going home. It didn't consider installing a new king, as the British had done in 1921, following their forced adoption of the territory after the loss of it by the ruling Ottomans, who joined the German and Austrian empires During WWI. No, the Bush administration did not plan fully, by any means.

With the world being the dangerous place that it is, human freedom and liberty have faced considerable threats over the course of history. Democratic countries often raise armies and elect leaders to engage them when these threats arise. George Bush decided to use the American military, along with many international allies in Iraq, because our own liberty, and western civilization itself, were under threat. It had been since the events of 9/11, since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, and since many similar but smaller events dating back to 1983 and before.

Have we achieved results worth the effort and expense, both human and financial? Republicans are not sure; they think, probably. Democrats are very sure; they think, no. Iraqis think, yes. Europe thinks, maybe, finally. The Middle East thinks, yes, finally, but will not to say so.

The probably-maybe and yes, finally equivocal evaluations are conditional because the process has taken so long. Republican politicians have to run for election and reelection, and they got legislatively hammered and timed-out in the 2006 mid terms. Their convictions and resolve faltered.

Democrats like it when Republicans falter. They have been firm in their own resolve that the war has been, and is, a disaster. Democrats haven't figured out yet that they are in danger being hammered and timed-out of the 2008 elections due to success in the Iraq war. The Europeans are of the maybe, finally opinion because they are seeing the U.S. success, and because they realize they haven't had to, and don't have to contribute more than their political systems can bear, as determined by near term convenience. But they don't want to incur additional debt to America, even though it would likely be forgiven, anyway.

uropeans are realizing to a greater degree than before the threat imposed by a nuclear Iran. They don't like suicide bomber attacks, they would like even less a nuclear suicide attack. They think the U.S. has the resolve, now, along with the obvious capacity to prevail in the region.

The Middle East thinks yes, finally because Iranian leaders are not conventionally rational. Some Middle East countries are either conventionally rational, or can at least understand conventional rationality. The Gulf States like their new, modern airports, hotels and downtowns. They would like to keep them. This will be easier with the U.S. presence and influence in the Gulf.

Why do the Middle East and Europe think this American effort might be worth it, and probably will be worth it, although won't say so, only just now? Enough time has gone by that both Europe and the Middle East have seen the Bush Administration in action. Described as incompetent, ill-prepared and possibly criminal, the Bush-led coalition conducted a surgical military invasion that was precise, quick, competent and powerful to a degree never before seen in modern history. The Middle East and Europe evaluated the performance on a scale that ranges from imperialist self-serving Nazi style bullies on one end, to mild mannered humanitarian peace keepers at the other. They placed us in some appropriate space between these two extremes.

The United States, leading the coalition of 30 nations, plus the quiet support of 15 more, performed a task impossible under any other leadership. The costs were too great to remain uncriticized on the American home front. It made us all sick. But the U.S. military performed its job, admirably and incredibly. The administration picked and adjusted a strategy that finally worked, under conditions that had to conform to a strict checklist of disqualifiers.

We tried, and succeeded, in not performing a Germany-style take over, as both Bismarck and Hitler did in France. It may have proven cleaner if we would have used these models. But General Jay Garner's mission after the successful initial invasion was to supervise and keep order. It wasn't to conquer, occupy and impose order.

If a Saddam administrative subordinate or two had stepped forward and offered to assume the helm, they could have had the place simply by showing some credentials and cooperation. None took the step. There were none who could. If the Iraqi military would have stepped forward, they could have had the place, with a cooperative attitude and after passing a sanity test. They couldn't and didn't. If Iraqi exiles could have gotten along, gotten organized and gotten together some justification of their ability and evenhandedness, they could have had the place. But they couldn't.

If General Garner could have assumed control and supervised the functioning of existing Iraqi institutions, he would have. But all the Iraqi institutions were broken. It wasn't Jay Garner's fault. No one could have performed that management miracle. There was nothing to work with. Iraqi institutions needed Mukhabarat master mechanics -- the Iraqi Intelligence Service -- to function. Europe and the Middle East saw this.

The U.S.-led coalition had to backpedal and regroup. This job couldn't be done quickly, because there were no administrative Iraqi assets able to function. It would have been nice to have known this. But we didn't. The Iraqi National Congress expatriate experts didn't know it, and neither did anybody else. To be legitimate, the job would have to be done transparently, fairly, and quickly. We were only able to achieve transparency and fairness. We sent in Paul Bremer to establish Iraqi rule that was representative and legitimate in the eyes of Iraq and of the world.

Following WWI, Japan took over several German colonial holdings in China. Japan had permission from the greatest assemblage of world political representatives ever assembled: the Paris Peace Conference, of 1919. But the administrative handoff to Japan was not fair. Bremer would have to accomplish something more acceptable in Iraq than Woodrow Wilson and his European counterparts did at Versailles. He did. There were rough edges aplenty, and the process was brutal on Bremer and his group. They were the best we felt we had available to manage the process. Europe and the Middle East saw this.

Bremer assembled Iraqis who would organize other Iraqis, who would write a constitution, which would be ratified by all Iraqis, and then organize elections that would be voted upon throughout Iraq. The elections would be so fair, and the turnout so great, and the purple fingers and smiling faces of the Iraqi voters so prominent and happy that the world saw and judged with approval. Unbelievably, all of this occurred without the assistance of the best foreign-vote-supervision dignitary we have -- former President Jimmy Carter. The voting did not quell the violence or solve unresolved problems. There would be continued Hell to pay. We paid it. And Europe and the Middle East saw this.

The reconfiguration of Iraq was done well enough that the nature of the region is in the middle of a giant step forward. The Middle East could stumble--it has been clumsy for ever so long. But there are enough conventionally rational political players in this game that the chances of success are decent. The alternative to sure footed stability is tragedy, and on display for all to see in the Palestinian debacle of Gaza and the West Bank. There isn't enough conventional rationality available there to succeed. Rational Palestinians in numbers sufficient to realize when to come in out of the rain have long since departed that land. Its only chance is example, persuasion or pressure by neighbors who are in the position now to take a breath and realize that civilization is more than masses of people living in close proximity.

A League of Democracies might go a long way toward cooperative international efforts at worthwhile global management projects. We had hoped for this with the League of Nations and the United Nations. If John McCain is serious about national security and international communal sanity -- he certainly sounds so -- we might yet look back on Iraq and its reformation with pride, and relief.

SCREW PELOSI AND HER COHORTS

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/04/absolut-arrogance-and-the-advertising-agency-behind-the-reconquista-ad
Better SAVE Than Sorry
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Immigration: Why would nearly 50 Democrats not allow legislation they co-sponsored to get to the House floor for a vote? Because their boss, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, doesn't want meaningful immigration reform that protects our borders.
________________________________________
Read More: Immigration
________________________________________
It's a tad unnatural for House Republicans to be pushing a so-called discharge petition to force a vote on a piece of Democratic legislation. But such is the case with the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act, or SAVE, authored by freshman Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
Among the bill's key provisions are the addition of 8,000 border patrol agents the next four years and 1,200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to strengthen interior enforcement and support local law enforcement officers.
Another provision ensures that agents have "high-quality body armor that is appropriate for the climate and risks faced by the agent."
The SAVE Act also provides for the acquirement along the border of advanced technologies, including aerial surveillance systems and infrared technology. It would add 13 more federal judges to hear cases against those who are arrested for breaking into the U.S., including drug traffickers and the wily coyotes paid to transport illegal aliens into this country.
While adding sticks, the act cuts down the number of carrots attracting illegal aliens — illegal employment — by expanding the E-verify program to provide employers with the tools to confirm that prospective employees are legally here. E-verify is a Web-based system to cross-reference Social Security numbers and other pertinent information. Some 56,000 employers already use the system.
The system screens all applicants, so racial profiling is not an issue. As we've noted, in states where local authorities have ramped up enforcement, illegal immigration has declined dramatically, and many of those already here have left under a process some have called self-deportation. The risks soon exceed the benefits.
While the V stands for verification and the E stands for enforcement, the A does not stand for amnesty. This might explain the opposition of the House Democratic leadership.
It deals strictly with sealing the borders first, creating a safe and secure system under which issues such as guest workers and paths to citizenship can be dealt with. The theory is: First, stop the bleeding.
It could be that some of these co-sponsors are not serious, that they want to go before the voters saying they're in favor of protecting our borders knowing the legislation might never see the light of day. Then they can say it's not their fault it's bottled up in committee. Few voters know or care that a discharge petition is a procedure that moves a bill out of committee
The bill has 147 co-sponsors from more than half the states, including 49 Democrats, but Speaker Pelosi is leading the fight to prevent a floor vote. It takes 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force a floor vote, and so far 185 have signed the one on SAVE. Interestingly, only 10 of the original Democratic co-sponsors have done so.
An outraged Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said in support of the discharge petition:
"In just the past year, this (Democratic) majority voted to cut funding for the border fence, opened the door to illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded services without showing proof of citizenship and overturned a successful GOP proposal to prevent taxpayer-funded federal benefits from being awarded to illegal immigrants."
If 33 of the original Democratic co-sponsors of the SAVE Act who have not signed the discharge petition were to do so, the bill would proceed to the floor where serious debate on a major issue could begin. But that would require Democrats' going on record in an election year and doing more than blowing smoke on border security.
/

GENERAL PETRAEUS

Get IBD Editorials Via Email

Email To Friend | Print

Verbatim: Petraeus On The 'Fragile And Reversible' Situation In Iraq

By GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS | Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Following is the testimony delivered Tuesday by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command.

Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago, there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaida-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.

Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible.

Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.

A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made. First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.

A second factor has been the employment of Coalition and Iraqi Forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue al-Qaida-Iraq, to combat criminals and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.

Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni "Awakening" in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected AQI's indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq's bounty if they didn't participate in the political arena.

Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis — some, former insurgents — to contribute to local security as so-called "Sons of Iraq." With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of al-Qaida-Iraq, the threat posed by AQI — while still lethal and substantial — has been reduced significantly.

The recent flare-up in Basrah, southern Iraq and Baghdad underscored the importance of the ceasefire declared by Moqtada al-Sadr last fall as another factor in the overall reduction in violence. Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again.

Though a Sadr standdown order resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.

As we look to the future, our task together with our Iraqi partners will be to build on the progress achieved and to deal with the many challenges that remain. I do believe that we can do this while continuing the ongoing drawdown of the surge forces.

The Nature of the Conflict

In September, I described the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq as a competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition continues, influenced heavily by outside actors and its resolution remains the key to producing long-term stability in Iraq.

Various elements push Iraq's ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists and criminal gangs pose significant threats. Al-Qaida's senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction and foreign fighters to Iraq.

Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq's challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports AQI. And Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way, through its lethal support to the Special Groups. Finally, insufficient Iraqi governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and corruption add to Iraq's problems.

These challenges and recent weeks' violence notwithstanding, Iraq's ethno-sectarian competition in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence. In fact, the recent escalation of violence in Baghdad and southern Iraq was dealt with temporarily, at least, by most parties acknowledging that the rational way ahead is political dialogue rather than street fighting.

Current Situation and Trends

As I stated at the outset, though Iraq obviously remains a violent country, we do see progress in the security arena. For nearly six months, security incidents have been at a level not seen since early-to-mid-2005, though the level did spike in recent weeks as a result of the violence in Basrah and Baghdad. The level of incidents has, however, begun to turn down again, though the period ahead will be a sensitive one.

As our primary mission is to help protect the population, we closely monitor the number of Iraqi civilians killed due to violence. Civilian deaths have decreased over the past year to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra Mosque bombing that set off the cycle of sectarian violence that tore the very fabric of Iraqi society in 2006 and early2007. Civilian deaths due to violence have been reduced significantly, though more work clearly needs to be done.

Ethno-sectarian violence is a particular concern in Iraq, as it is a cancer that continues to spread if left unchecked. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence has fallen since we testified last September. A big factor has been the reduction of ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Some of this decrease is, to be sure, due to sectarian hardening of certain Baghdad neighborhoods; however, that is only a partial explanation as countless sectarian fault lines and numerous mixed neighborhoods still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere. In fact, Coalition and Iraqi Forces have focused along the fault lines to reduce the violence and enable Sunni and Shia leaders to begin the long process of healing in their local communities.

Even though the number of high-profile attacks increased in March as AQI lashed out, the current level of such attacks remains far below its height a year ago. Moreover, as we have helped improve security and focused on enemy networks, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of such attacks. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence, in particular, has remained relatively low, illustrating the enemy's inability to date to re-ignite the cycle of ethno-sectarian violence.

The emergence of Iraqi volunteers helping to secure their local communities has been an important development. There are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq — Shia as well as Sunni — under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence — not to mention the priceless lives saved — have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts.

Sons of Iraq have also contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons and explosives caches. In fact, we have already found more caches in 2008 than we found in all of 2006. Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we are working closely with the Iraqi Government to transition them into the Iraqi Security Forces or other forms of employment, and over 21,000 have already been accepted into the Police or Army or other government jobs.

This process has been slow, but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully. Al-Qaida also recognizes the significance of the Sons of Iraq, and AQI elements have targeted them repeatedly. However, these attacks — in addition to AQI's use of women, children and the handicapped as suicide bombers — have further alienated AQI from the Iraqi people. And the tenacious pursuit of AQI, together with AQI's loss of local support in many areas, has substantially reduced its capability, numbers, and freedom of movement.

(As for) the cumulative effect of the effort against AQI and its insurgent allies, we have reduced considerably the areas in which AQI enjoys support and sanctuary, though there clearly is more to be done. Having noted that progress, AQI is still capable of lethal attacks, and we must maintain relentless pressure on the organization, on the networks outside Iraq that support it, and on the resource flows that sustain it.

As you can see, defeating al-Qaida in Iraq requires not just actions by our elite counter-terrorist forces, but also major operations by Coalition and Iraqi conventional forces, a sophisticated intelligence effort, political reconciliation, economic and social programs, information operations initiatives, diplomatic activity, the employment of counterinsurgency principles in detainee operations and many other actions.

Related to this effort, I applaud Congress' support for additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets in the upcoming Supplemental, as ISR is vital to the success of our operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

As we combat AQI, we must remember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq; it also weakens an organization that al-Qaida's senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.

Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri have consistently advocated exploiting the situation in Iraq, and we have also seen AQI involved in destabilizing activities in the wider Mideast region. Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups.

These elements are funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response.

Iraqi and Coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to promises made by President Ahmedinajad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the Special Groups. However, nefarious activities by the Qods Force have continued, and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq.

We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead, as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Iraqi Security Forces

The Iraqi Security Forces have continued to develop since September, and we have transferred responsibilities to Iraqi Forces as their capabilities and the conditions on the ground have permitted. Half of Iraq's 18 provinces are under provincial Iraqi control. Many of these provinces — not just the successful provinces in the

Kurdish Regional Government area, but also a number of southern provinces — have done well.

Challenges have emerged in some others, including, of course, Basrah. Nonetheless, this process will continue, and we expect Anbar and Qadisiyah Provinces to transition in the months ahead.

Iraqi Forces have grown significantly since September, and over 540,000 individuals now serve in the Iraqi Security Forces. The number of combat battalions capable of taking the lead in operations, albeit with some Coalition support, has grown to well over 100. These units are bearing an increasing share of the burden, as evidenced by the fact that Iraqi Security Force losses have recently been three times our own.

We will, of course, conduct careful after-action reviews with our Iraqi partners in the wake of recent operations, as there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases, and some of our assessments may be downgraded as a result. Nonetheless, the performance of many units was solid, especially once they got their footing and gained a degree of confidence, and certain Iraqi elements proved quite capable.

Underpinning the advances of the past year have been improvements in Iraq's security institutions. An increasingly robust Iraqi-run training base enabled the Iraqi Security Forces to grow by over 133,000 soldiers and police over the past 16 months. And the still-expanding training base is expected to generate an additional 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 Army and Special Operations battalions throughout the rest of 2008, along with over 23,000 police and eight National Police battalions.

Additionally, Iraq's security ministries are steadily improving their ability to execute their budgets. In 2007, as in 2006, Iraq's security ministries spent more on their forces than the United States provided through the Iraqi Security Forces Fund (ISFF).

We anticipate that Iraq will spend over $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year, and this projection enabled us recently to reduce significantly our Iraqi Security Forces Fund request for fiscal year 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.

While improved, Iraqi Security Forces are not yet ready to defend Iraq or maintain security throughout the country on their own. Recent operations in Basrah highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi Security Forces to deploy substantial numbers of units, supplies and replacements on very short notice; they certainly could not have deployed a division's worth of Army and Police units on such short notice a year ago.On the other hand, the recent operations also underscored the considerable work still to be done in the areas of logistics, force enablers, staff development, and command and control.

We also continue to help Iraq through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. As of March 2008, the Iraqi government has purchased over $2 billion worth of equipment and services of American origin through FMS. Since September, and with your encouragement of the organizations in the FMS process, delivery has improved as the FMS system has strived to support urgent wartime requirements.

On a related note, I would ask that Congress consider restoring funding for the International Military Education and Training Program, which supports education for mid- and senior-level Iraqi military and civilian leaders and is an important component of the development of the leaders Iraq will need in the future.

Upcoming Challenges

While security has improved in many areas, and the Iraqi Security Forces are shouldering more of the load, the situation in Iraq remains exceedingly complex and challenging. Iraq could face a resurgence of AQI or additional Shia groups could violate Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire order and return to violence. External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq, and actions by other neighbors could undermine the security situation as well.

Other challenges result, paradoxically, from improved security, which has provided opportunities for political and economic progress and improved services at the local, provincial and national levels. But the improvements have also created expectations that progress will continue.

In the coming months, Iraq's leaders must strengthen governmental capacity, execute budgets, pass additional legislation, conduct provincial elections, carry out a census, determine the status of disputed territories and resettle internally displaced persons and refugees. These tasks would challenge any government, much less a still developing government tested by war.

The Commander's Emergency Response Program, the State Department's Quick Response Fund, and USAID programs enable us to help Iraq deal with its challenges. To that end, I respectfully ask that you provide us by June the additional CERP funds requested in the Supplemental.

These funds have an enormous impact. As I noted earlier, the salaries paid to the Sons of Iraq alone cost far less than the cost savings in vehicles not lost due to the enhanced security in local communities. Encouragingly, the Iraqi government recently allocated $300 million for us to manage as "Iraqi CERP" to perform projects for their people, while building their own capacity to do so.

The Iraqi government has also committed $163 million to gradually assume Sons of Iraq contracts, $510 million for small business loans and $196 million for a Joint Training, Education and Reintegration Program. The Iraqi government pledges to provide more as they execute the budget passed two months ago. Nonetheless, it is hugely important to have our resources continue, even as Iraqi funding begins to outstrip ours.

Recommendations

Last month I provided my chain of command recommendations for the way ahead in Iraq. During that process, I noted the objective of retaining and building on our hard-fought security gains while we draw down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams. I emphasized the need to continue work with our Iraqi partners to secure the population and to transition responsibilities to the Iraqis as quickly as conditions permit, but without jeopardizing the security gains that have been made.

As in September, my recommendations are informed by operational and strategic considerations.

* The operational considerations include recognition that:
* The military surge has achieved progress, but that the progress is reversible.
* Iraqi Security Forces have strengthened their capabilities but still must grow further.
* The provincial elections in the fall, refugee returns, detainee releases and efforts to resolve provincial boundary disputes and Article 140 issues will be very challenging.
* The transition of Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi Security Forces or other pursuits will require time and careful monitoring.
* Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year.
* Performing the necessary tasks in Iraq will require sizable conventional forces as well as special operations forces and advisor teams.

The strategic considerations include recognition that:

* The strain on the US military, especially on its ground forces, has been considerable.
* A number of the security challenges inside Iraq are also related to significant regional and global threats.
* A failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against al-Qaida, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq and for the effort to counter malign Iranian influence.

After weighing these factors, I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown of the surge combat forces and that, upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation.

At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions. This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit.

This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.

With this approach, the security achievements of 2007 and early 2008 can form a foundation for the gradual establishment of sustainable security in Iraq. This is not only important to the 27 million citizens of Iraq; it is also vitally important to those in the Gulf region, to the citizens of the United States and to the global community.

It clearly is in our national interest to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of al-Qaida in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq's borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.

Closing Comments

In closing, I want to comment briefly on those serving our nation in Iraq. We have asked a great deal of them and of their families, and they have made enormous sacrifices. My keen personal awareness of the strain on them and on the force as a whole has been an important factor in my recommendations.

The Congress, the Executive Branch and our fellow citizens have done an enormous amount to support our troopers and their loved ones, and all of us are grateful for that. Nothing means more to those in harm's way than the knowledge that their country appreciates their sacrifices and those of their families.

Indeed, all Americans should take great pride in the men and women serving our nation in Iraq and in the courage, determination, resilience and initiative they demonstrate each and every day.

It remains the greatest of honors to soldier with them.

Thank you very much.

Email To Friend | Print | View All Editorials | Search

Back To Top

A TRUE HERO AND VETERAN

Culture Links
The e-mail newsletter of the Culture and Media Institute

April 8, 2008 | Volume 2, Issue 14

To ensure delivery, add cmi@mail.mediaresearch.org to your safe senders list


Culture and Media Institute

Forward to a Friend | Subscribe







No Forgiving Charlton Heston

by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor, Culture and Media Institute



My grandfather was a college football star who even played for the NFL champs back in 1928, so I was looking forward to seeing George Clooney’s new 1920s football movie, Leatherheads, this weekend. That’s before I found out how Clooney, like many lefties in Hollywood and the news media, had treated the late Charlton Heston.



Clooney’s offense took place a few years back. According to Life Site News, “For his conservative stands, however, Heston was attacked and reviled by his Hollywood colleagues. In 2003 actor and leftist political activist George Clooney joked about Heston’s illness [Alzheimer’s disease], and, after Heston criticized him for the remark, he retorted, 'I don’t care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.'”



Making fun of somebody with Alzheimer’s disease and feeling no remorse is about as low as it gets, but it isn’t all that surprising in this case. To Clooney, Heston’s embrace of conservative orthodoxy on the Second Amendment made him worse than persona non grata. He became subhuman, not even deserving of the most basic courtesies.



George Clooney can only dream of rivaling Charlton Heston’s life accomplishments. Let’s leave aside the leading roles in some of the greatest movies ever made, the acting laurels and the celebrity, and look at the man:



* Married to his college sweetheart, Lydia, for 64 years.
* Beloved father of two successful children, one a Hollywood director.
* Unabashed Christian and church attender.
* First among his peers; President of the Screen Actors Guild a record six times.
* Served his country in World War II as a B-25 crewman..
* Campaigner for civil rights; protested as early as 1961, long before it became popular, and marched on Washington alongside Dr. Martin Luther King.
* Protector of the unborn; provided the introduction for Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s great pro-life film, Silent Scream.
* Champion of public decency; shamed Time Warner into dropping rapper Ice-T’s contract because of his song celebrating the murder of police officers.
* Defender of individual liberty; President of the National Rifle Association.



Ask Heston which of his accomplishments he treasured most, and he’d probably point to this tribute from his family: “Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life…. We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a gentle grandfather with an infectious sense of humor. He served these far greater roles with tremendous faith, courage and dignity.”



Sadly, many in the liberal news media wear ideological blinders that render them incapable of appreciating the entirety of Charlton Heston. In spite of Heston’s admirable private life, sterling character and spectacular career, some journalists could only see Heston waving a musket in the air at the 2000 NRA convention and growling, “Out of my cold, dead hands.” They saw Heston’s pro-gun stance as beyond the pale, as if it were morally reprehensible to stand up for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (For a study of media bias against the Second Amendment, see “The Media Assault on the Second Amendment” in Related Stories.) Heston’s death this past Saturday has allowed them to express hostility similar in kind, if not in tone or degree, to Clooney.



* ABC’s Barbara Walters: “He is very controversial or was because of his support of NRA.”
* ABC’s Dan Harris: “As President of the National Rifle Association, he became one of the most polarizing figures in American politics.”
* CBS’s Russ Mitchell: “Once the quintessential big screen hero, in his later years he drew as much attention for his controversial politics.”
* AP’s David Germain: a “fierce gun-rights advocate.”



Not “principled” or “passionate.” Just “fierce.” Charlton Heston was “polarizing” and “controversial” because he refused to toe the line of political correctness.



Heston began his public activism as a liberal, backing Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and Kennedy in 1960. In 1963 he marched with Martin Luther King Jr., but he supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1980. The apparent transformation was mostly superficial, though, a question of party labels. USA Today didn’t quite get it right: “Heston, like Reagan, claimed the Democratic Party left him while his values remained the same – a personal sea change that by the Reagan ’80s had turned Heston into one of the most prominently public Republicans.”



What “personal sea change?” Though he grew on some issues (notably, the Second Amendment), Heston’s core values, his support for individual liberties from civil rights to life to self-defense, were consistent throughout. “Liberalism” changed, not Charlton Heston.



I met Heston once, in an elevator on the way to a gathering of Hollywood conservatives. No, the meeting wasn’t held in the elevator. Instead of asking him how he parted the Red Sea, I brought up a Second Amendment essay he’d recently written. Engaging his mind, rather than his celebrity, delighted him. He was affable, unpretentious and witty, and he clearly had the courage of his convictions.



After forcing Time Warner to cut its ties with Ice-T over the Cop Killer album by reading aloud the lyrics at a corporate stockholders’ meeting, Heston quipped, “Still, I’m proud of what I did, though now I’ll surely never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time. On the other hand, I doubt I’ll get a traffic ticket very soon.” Now there’s a man Kipling would be proud of.


This weekend you won’t catch me dead at that Clooney movie. I think I’ll head for the rifle range instead, then crank up the home theater and enjoy my brand new DVD of Ben Hur.

INTERESTING LINK

http://www.michiganrecalls.com/

IF WE DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING...

IF WE DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING...

We will stand alone.....


Below please find a special message from our sister company, Regnery Publishing. We occasionally share opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. To manage your e-mail delivery preferences, click the link in the footer of this message.
America Alone: Soon to Be Banned in Canada

What is this book about?

Well, it's about to be banned in Canada.

Labeled as "flagrantly Islamophobic" by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the New York Times bestseller America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, is now in paperback—and ironically could soon be sold in America alone.

Why is America Alone so controversial? Acclaimed author and journalist Mark Steyn answers this question—and more—in his witty and provocative new introduction.

Maybe it's because America Alone is "alarmist" (according to Canada). Or maybe, just maybe, it's because Steyn proclaims the unspeakable, yet undeniable truth: the Western world is falling prey to the unrelenting tide of radical Islam, demographically and ideologically. And if we don't do something soon, one day we'll wake up to the end of the world as we know it: the end of church bells, replaced by the muezzin's call to prayer. The end of free speech, replaced by strict, religious-based censorship. The end of liberty and justice for all, replaced by Sharia law.

Think this can't happen? Guess again. The future, as Steyn shows, belongs to the fecund and confident. And the Islamists are both, while the West is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization. All is not lost though: America can survive, prosper, and defend its freedom. But only if it becomes self-reliant, stays true to itself, and fights for the conviction that our country really is the world's last, best hope.

If we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything...Canada already has.

Click below to save 20% or more off bookstore prices!


This e-mail was sent to supergramps.duane@gmail.com because you are subscribed to
New Book Announcements from Regnery Publishing.

To unsubscribe or to update your email delivery preferences, click here.

Regnery Publishing, Inc. | One Massachusetts Ave, NW | Washington, DC 20001
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 3:51 PM 0 comments
WORLD'S MOST INTOLERENT RELIGION!

I have had people try to tell me that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. If so, then where are those who should be speaking out against this type of thing. Try reading the Koran sometime. It is one the must intolerant books I have ever tried to read. I have yet to make it all the way through.

It is historical fact that Islam was was spread by fire and sword. That much is Historical fact. That is not a religion of peace and tolerance. Children in Strict Islamic countries are being taught hate for the West, especially for America and Israel. This is fact, look it up. As for these poor mis-guided ignorant protesters, they probably couldn't locate the Netherlands on a map if it was the only country on the map. They are used and abused and kept totally ignorant of anything that approaches reality.

We as Christians are expected to put up with persecution, vilification, vile intolerant attacks. We are expected to sit by silently while God and the Bible are mocked daily by the mass media and our own Hollywood. And the things that come out of the Islamic press and websites is inconceivable. It is just mind blowing and we are expected, as a nation, to just sit back and take it. LIKE HELL!!!!

STAND UP AND HOLLER.


Protests, Calls for Boycott As Muslims React to Critical Film
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
April 07, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - An online documentary film critical of Islam continued to shake the Muslim world over the weekend, sparking street protests, attempted censorship, and calls for retaliatory boycotts.

As tens of thousands of chanting Pakistanis gathered in Karachi Sunday to protest Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders' film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, the speaker of Iran's conservative-dominated parliament urged Muslims to sever economic ties with countries that blaspheme Islam, saying Western nations would quickly repent once they saw their economies endangered.

Iran's Fars news agency reported that an Iranian non-governmental organization is preparing a response to Wilders' film in the shape of a documentary that will include clips of "crimes committed by extremist Christians" inspired by biblical passages.

In Indonesia, an association overseeing Internet service providers confirmed it was beginning to block access to some of the many Web sites where the film, entitled "Fitna," can be accessed, several days after the government asked the video-sharing site YouTube to remove it.

And in Saudi Arabia, the head of a bloc of 56 Islamic states stepped up calls for governments to enact and enforce laws criminalizing the abuse of free speech to attack religions.

Speaking in Jeddah, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said it was high time that the international community agreed that actions like Wilders' film and the publication of newspaper cartoons lampooning Islam's prophet posed a grave threat to global peace and security.

Unless the perpetrators of such acts of "intolerance and racism" were made to face justice under national or international laws, they would be free to defy the will of the international community and undo progress in improving relations between religions, he said in a statement.

A range of governments and international organizations have denounced the short film, which went online late last month.

The film, and the reappearance in Danish newspapers earlier this year of cartoons depicting Mohammed, have fueled campaigns in the Islamic world against what many are calling "Islamophobia."

At the United Nations, OIC nations and some non-Muslim allies are working on highlighting the "defamation" of Islam while calling for restrictions on free speech when it comes to criticizing religion.

They also are pressing to have Islamophobia recognized as a contemporary form of racism, an issue that is expected to feature prominently at a global racism conference the U.N. is planning in the first half of next year.

The OIC, which has set up a special body to monitor Islamophobia, defines the phenomenon as an irrational fear or dislike of Islam, incorporating "racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping," and says it has "assumed alarming proportions" in recent years.

As far as Muslims are concerned, said the OIC in a recent report, the cause of this is a "misconception and incorrect interpretation of Islam" and its values.

Wilders' film shows images of major terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims during recent years and footage of radical Islamists inciting violence, interspersed with translations of selected verses from the Koran.

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 2:36 PM 0 comments
Labels: RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE






Print all
Goldwater Institute: Breaking the Link Between Poverty and Low Achievement

Inbox X
Now isn't this a radical concept, a conservative Republican coming up with a good, sound, workable idea. Just too too radical

The Goldwater Institute Daily
April 7, 2008


Breaking the Link Between Poverty and Low Achievement
Why Jeb Bush should be on Mount Rushmore

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.

Imagine if we carved a Mount Rushmore for successful progressive governors. Since the root word of "progressive" is "progress," I nominate former Florida governor Jeb Bush to make the cut.

Mount RushmoreProgressives are concerned with the welfare of the poor. But a better definition, one might argue, would be someone who actually makes progress toward solving the problems of the poor. Like Jeb Bush.

The Florida governor is a right-winger, to be sure, but he sure looks progressive. A look at the graph below shows the progress Florida has made on breaking the link between poverty and low educational achievement.

Figure 1 compares progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress 4th Grade (NEAP) Reading exam for low-income students (Free or Reduced Lunch Eligible) in Florida, compared to all students in Arizona, with scores on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal.
Testing Data



To qualify for the lunch program, a family of four must have an income of no more than $26,845. The median family income for the Arizona families whose student scores are shown here was $55,709. The chart makes it clear that Florida is breaking the link between poverty and achievement, in that its disadvantaged students are outscoring the average Arizonan. A similar result is evident in math, but the graph is not included here.

I have said in the past that there's a difference between a condition and a problem. A condition is something we've given up on and have grown to accept. A problem is something we aim to solve. A condition says that the poor are always with us. A progressive problem solver like Jeb Bush is equipping the poor to lead productive and rewarding lives.

Ironically, time is running out on our own Governor Napolitano to leave an education legacy not dominated by flat achievement scores and a mountain of debt. Not every governor can be Jeb Bush. But, by pursuing reforms that work, the Governor still has time to put the "progress" back into "progressive."

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More

Goldwater Institute: I'll Have What Florida's Having

TC Palm: Florida trailblazing success in K-12 reform

Arizona Republic: Noble legacy in education is on table for Napolitano
Contact

Matt Ladner
Goldwater Institute
mladner@goldwaterinstitute.org
Goldwater logo


Forward email

Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to supergramps.duane@gmail.com, by pgibbons@goldwaterinstitute.org
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.


Goldwater Institute | 500 E. Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone (602) 462-5000 | Fax (602) 256-7045 | Email info@goldwaterinstitute.org
Reply

Forward
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 12:23 PM 0 comments
Sunday, April 6, 2008
WHO GIVES A RAT'S PETUNIAs

Can anyone explain to me why I, or anyone else in this country, should give a rat's petunias when it come to immigration laws (or anything else regarding what happens within our borders).

South Texas Migrant Detention: 'An Extreme Depressive State'


Posted by editor on Sunday, April 06 @ 10:38:38 MDT


Civil Rights in Texas--General

By Greg Moses

In a recent landmark report, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Jorge Bustamante said that the "overuse of immigration detention in the United States violates the spirit of international laws and conventions and, in many cases, also violates the actual letter of those instruments." South Texas immigration attorney Jodi Goodwin agrees.

"I do not see that the letter nor the spirit of international law is given any importance in US Immigration law," confirms Goodwin. "In fact, international law does not really come into play in the legal arena at all." Considering Goodwin’s long experience with migrant clients, we asked her to respond to other issues raised by the Bustamante report:

Texas Civil Rights Review: Bustamante said immigration enforcement is being gradually shifted toward state and local agencies. At last count, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports that 41 state and local agencies have signed up as "287(g) partners" to assist with immigration enforcement, helping to identify as many as 45,000 individuals for "possible deportation." The Associated Press reports that the number of cooperating agencies could soon reach as many as100. What effects of this activity can be seen at the detention centers in South Texas?

Goodwin: The increase in the use of local law enforcement for immigration law is seen at the detention centers all the time. Many times people are detained by ICE only after a traffic stop for a minor violation, like a headlight being out or something, and then the local law enforcement officers inquire into the immigration status of individuals. I have seen really sympathetic cases where local law enforcement initiated the arrest and then the people are whisked 2,000 miles away from their home, family, community, etc. to be detained in South Texas.

TCRR: When it comes to immigration law, what is the difference between a criminal violation and a civil violation?

Goodwin: The criminal violations of the immigration law are prosecuted by the United States Attorney in Federal Courts. These criminal violations can be subject to jail and or prison sentences. Civil violations of the immigration laws are processed by the ICE Office of Chief Counsel. These violations can result in deportation if the person does not have any relief from removal.

TCRR: According to the Bustamante report, in 2006 the USA began to intensify the use of mandatory detentions and deportations that were put into law in 1996. What effects have you seen of this recent crackdown?

Goodwin: The biggest effect of the enforcement crackdown that I have seen is the enormous growth in the population of detained individuals in the South Texas area. The San Antonio Field Office of ICE is home to more detention bedspace than any other Field Office in the US. Beyond that, there is a marked lack of lawyers and pro bono assistance for all of these individuals that are detained for the most part in very rural, remote, areas of South Texas.

TCRR: Bustamante says that he "heard accounts from victims that ICE officials entered their homes without a warrant, denied them access to lawyers or a phone to call family members, and coerced them to sign 'voluntary departure' agreements." How does this compare with accounts that you have heard from your clients?

Goodwin: Bustamante's account of ICE actions comports completely with many stories that I have heard from my clients. In fact, I have heard even more egregious stories than the example Mr. Bustamante sets forth.

TCRR: One of your clients? Would you be able to share a story like that?

Goodwin: Sure, I have heard the ugly details of many such arrests. Let me take one as an example: I had a client who was arrested by ICE at her home at around 5:00 am. Agents knocked on the door loudly yelling, "Police, Federal Officers." Her husband answered the door half asleep and as soon as he opened the door the agents forced their way into the home and knocked her husband down. Of course, the agents start yelling at him and start going through the house to look for people.

My client was in her bed as was her child. She was forced up and handcuffed while in her night clothes. The child awoke and saw all of this happen and as expected of a child started to cry. Instead of showing any compassion at all the agents start yelling at the child to shut up, then yelling at the parents to make their child shut up. They had to beg the agents to let her put on clothes before they took her away.

After being arrested and before physically making it in transport to the detention center, my client was "asked" to sign a voluntary removal no less than 4 times. Fortunately for her, she was insistent with the agents that she would not sign their papers and they would just have to put her in jail because she wanted to see an immigration judge.

My client was not a criminal. She had no criminal history at all. She was married to a United States citizen and had applied for her "papers" through him. What was her immigration violation that would warrant a pre-dawn home invasion? She overstayed her visitor visa.

TCRR: Rapporteur Bustamante recommends that, "Immigration detainees in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and placed in removal proceedings, should have the right to appointed counsel." It seems astonishing to me that detained persons would not have a right to counsel, but maybe you can help us to understand how the lack of right to an attorney is affecting people in detention today?

Goodwin: The lack of the right to appointed counsel is one that has plagued me for decades. The Supreme Court has characterized the deportation process as non-punitive. Therefore, given that it is a civil proceeding in nature, the Constitutional guarantees to counsel do not apply. The lack of access to legal counsel is a huge constraint on South Texas detainees. Many are confused and do not know what they are being charged with. Many do not understand the process and procedures of the court system. Many do not know or have access to information that could prove they have a defense or are eligible for some form of relief from being removed.

TCRR: Bustamante also seems to be concerned that Government pressure for deportation is conflicting with basic human rights to private life and family. He says that laws in the USA put too much weight on the Government's side. He recommends that USA laws should be changed to "ensure that all non-citizens have access to a hearing before an impartial adjudicator, who will weigh the non-citizen's interest in remaining in the United States (including their rights to found a family and to a private life) against the Government's interest in deporting him or her." What are the kinds of human issues that don't get heard under the current system?

Goodwin: Most human issues are not heard at all in immigration proceedings. It is extremely difficult for a person to qualify for any type of relief from being removed. And then, even if one does qualify, the courts have to be convinced in their discretion to grant you some type of relief. This is the hardest aspect to make my clients understand: even though I care about the human issues involved in their cases, the courts and the Immigration Service do not. Our laws are structured in a way that any interest in human issues is left out of the equation.

TCRR: In a related recommendation, Butamante says that ICE should, "ensure that the facilities where non-citizens in removal proceedings are held are located within easy reach of the detainees' counsel or near urban areas where the detainee will have access to legal service providers and pro bono counsel." In your experience, is it ever a hardship to represent clients simply because of the location of the detention centers?

Goodwin: It is ALWAYS a hardship to represent detainees in remote areas. I live in South Texas and practice here, but most of my clients are from thousands of miles away. That means their family and support network are thousands of miles away. Aside from the logistical difficulty of getting documents and preparing cases, the worst part is the extreme depressive state my clients develop. For many I am the only person that ever visits them, and they would benefit greatly from the support and care of their families being close by. The other hardship is that there are a very limited number of lawyers who practice immigration law in this area. There is only one pro bono agency. The pool of available competent lawyers is extremely thin.

TCRR: Bustamante is calling for some fairly serious reforms in the structure of immigration judges. He says immigration judges should no longer work under the Department of Justice; rather, they should be appointed to a truly independent judicial system. What kind of difference would this make to the practice of immigration law?

Goodwin: It would change in the sense that the Immigration Judges would not be beholden politically to the Attorney General. They would be able to make decisions based in law and justice as opposed to politics and fear. They would be able to pass judgment on the government as well as the aliens. As it stands the process, even through the administrative appeals process, is highly weighted toward the government.

TCRR: Finally, Bustamante says that migrant detention practices should provide more alternatives, especially for children, but also for women who are suffering from prior traumas. How appropriate are the conditions of current detention for traumatized migrant women?

Goodwin: Conditions for women are of particular concern because of the specialized medical care needs. I have seen that these medical needs are not met routinely. I have also seen that women, who have been traumatized by events prior to their detention, are further traumatized by the further detention. The lack of mental health care also plays into the conditions for women.

TCRR: Thank you Jodi Goodwin for helping us to understand the Bustamante report in the context of South Texas.
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 10:57 PM 0 comments
Labels: SCREW THE UN
Saturday, April 5, 2008
NEEDS NO COMMENT

Networks Ignore Revealing Obama ‘Baby’ Gaffe
Candidate doesn’t want daughters “punished with a baby.”

By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
April 2, 2008

Last Saturday afternoon, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama likened having a baby to being “punished” or contracting a sexually transmitted disease, but you’d never know it by watching network news.



This revealing remark should have been a major story, given Obama’s history as a pro-abortion advocate who, as a state legislator, refused to support a partial birth abortion ban or a law protecting babies who survive abortions.



A Nexis search, however, reveals the statement has been covered only by bloggers, talk radio, cable talk shows and Fox News. CNN broadcast the speech live.



Speaking off the cuff to a Johnstown, Pennsylvania audience, Obama said:



When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include abstinence education and teaching children that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.



Despite intensive coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination, and condemnations of the remark from growing numbers of religious and pro-life organizations, we haven’t found a word about Obama’s colossal gaffe on ABC, NBC or CBS’s morning and evening news broadcasts as of the afternoon of April 2.



On Saturday evening, when the story should have been told, ABC preferred to cover Obama “playing nursemaid to a calf” and bowling. NBC discussed Obama’s retail politics in a bar and a wire factory. CBS was preempted by March Madness.



On Monday evening, both NBC and ABC led their newscasts with stories about Obama leading Hillary Clinton in polls and in fundraising. His frontrunner’s status won’t change, of course, if the networks refuse to report his troubling statements during public speeches.



This morning (April 2), CBS’s Early Show ran an interview of Obama by anchor Harry Smith. Rather than asking about the baby gaffe, Smith lobbed a few softballs:



* What is your sense from what your own people tell you about the switching that has taken place already in Pennsylvania in terms of Republicans coming over to support you?
* What do you know now that you didn't know when you announced 14 months ago?
* Are you willing to take her up on it? (Hillary Clinton’s April Fools Day offer of a “bowl-off.”)

Over on ABC, Good Morning America hosts Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts today ironically found time to chuckle over a video clip of a baby, just learning to talk, saying “Obama.”



Does the candidate consider that little boy a “punishment?”



Brian Fitzpatrick is senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.



Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 11:17 AM 0 comments
Labels: OBAMA LIBERALS ABORTION STDs DUANE TEWINKEL NETWORKS-IGNORE
Sunday, March 30, 2008
OBAMA SLAMBAMA, AGAIN

1. Obama's Top VP Choices: Jim Webb, Ted Strickland

The two leading candidates for the vice presidential slot if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination are Jim Webb and Ted Strickland, a Washington source close to Democratic party circles tells Newsmax.

Webb, a first-term senator from Virginia, agrees with Obama regarding the war on terror and Iraq. Like Obama, Webb opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, predicting that it would lead to a protracted guerilla war, and later called the invasion “the greatest strategic blunder in modern history.”

Webb is considered strong on foreign policy and the military, two areas in which Obama lacks experience. A highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran, Webb served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan.

As a former Republican, Webb could help balance the Democratic ticket and demonstrate Obama's desire to "reach out." And he could swing Virginia — a Red state that usually votes for the GOP — into the Democratic camp.

On the downside, a ticket with two U.S. senators might be seen as undesirable. In that case, the Democrats could turn to Strickland, the popular first-term governor of Ohio.

Strickland, who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for governor, won the 2006 election by garnering 60 percent of the vote against three opponents.

And a Quinnipiac University poll last year showed he had an approval rating in Ohio of 61 percent and a disapproval rating of just 15 percent.

As governor, Strickland has emphasized education and healthcare reform, two issues important to Obama supporters.

He has also been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and appeared in a TV ad in Ohio touting her campaign. But that could prove beneficial to the Obama ticket because it might help bridge the gap between his supporters and the Clinton machine.

Most important, Strickland could prove to be the deciding factor in determining the outcome of the presidential vote in Ohio, a crucial battleground state.

Editor's Note:
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 8:23 PM 0 comments
Monday, March 24, 2008
'NUFF SAID?

I add this without further comment....



RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

Unconvinced by Obama�s Wright Speech

Monday, March 24, 2008 2:28 PM

By: Edward I. Koch Article Font Size

Barack Obama�s speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.

Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, �There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?�

Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.

Many of Rev. Wright�s incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Qadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright�s sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS, and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy.

He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a �dirty word� and �racist country.� He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing �Zionism.� His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government �wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people.�

Sen. Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are �inexcusable,� but stated, �I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother � a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.�

Before we discuss his grandmother, let�s examine the impact of Rev. Wright�s statements on the senator�s two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical �South Pacific,� to wit, �You have to be taught to hate and fear�You�ve got to be carefully taught.� Few dispute that Rev. Wright�s sermons are filled with hate. Why didn�t Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister�s rants.

Now to Obama�s grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70�s to the mid-90s when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama�s grandmother. Indeed, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a Nov. 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun Times, he said, ��We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.� Then Jackson told the audience, �There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved . . . After all we have been through,� he said. �Just to think we can�t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.��

Isn�t that exactly what Obama�s grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson�s, with Wright�s anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today�s vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling. For shame.

What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America � foreign and domestic � and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.

What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric.

Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn�t do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright�s hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.

It is also disturbing to me that Obama�s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, �For the first time in my adult lifetime, I�m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.�

Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn�t she feel proud to be an American?

When she and the senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn�t she feel proud of her country?

Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn�t think so, and certainly not of those who weren�t already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy.

We will soon know.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Posted by A RAGAMUFFIN at 10:47 PM 0 comments
Older Posts
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
ONE OF MY GO