2007.09.14 Politics and National Defense Roundup Contributed by Bill Faith
Abu Risha killed 10 days after meeting Bush
BAGHDAD - Mourners vowed revenge and perseverance Friday at the funeral of the leader of the Sunni Arab revolt against al-Qaida militants who was assassinated just 10 days after meeting with President Bush in Iraq’s Anbar province. ...
“We will take our revenge,” the mourners chanted along the six-mile route to Risha’s family cemetery, many of them crying. “We will continue the march of Abu Risha.” ...
***
Ed Morrissey
If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha. Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI: ...
***
See also:
W. Thomas Smith Jr.:
Quick hits:
Bill Ardolino:
Bill Roggio:
Blackfive:
John Donovan:
Michelle Malkin ()
September 14, 2007 -- THE Democrats don't want to talk about it. They simply cannot, as a party, bring themselves to unequivocally condemn the shameless MoveOn.org slime ad published at a special, military-bashers discount rate by The New York Times. Talk about an in-kind contribution.
Now, the Democrats in Washington are hoping we'll just, you know, move on. Fat chance.
MoveOn's smear of Gen. David Petraeus as a traitor (the group's ad in the Times mocked him as "General Betray Us") is gutter politics. In a time of war, it is morale-undermining character assassination of a dangerous order. Not that the blabbermouths at either institution care, but our enemies are watching us. Watching. And snickering. And cheering the rhetorical grenade that was lobbed at one of America's most honorable and dedicated leaders on the battlefield. ...
***
***
Condemning Petraeus is condemning the troops. Thomas Smith Jr.
The anti-Iraq-war crowd is always quick to say they “support the troops.” But it’s not an expression of support when you accuse the top “troop” of lying, cherry-picking facts, and serving as a uniformed mouthpiece for the president, especially when all evidence is to the contrary.
That’s exactly what MoveOn.org has done with its full-page ad in the New York Times, accusing the top “troop” — four-star Gen. David Petraeus — of “betraying” the nation he has sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Many top Democrats — accepting backing from MoveOn and refusing to take a public stance against the organization’s very public condemnation of the general — are also guilty by association.
***
***
Allahpundit
A lefty friend told me yesterday she thought the was unfair because multiple Democrats did, in fact, denounce the “Betray Us” ad. Did they, though? Let’s see what we’ve got. Waffles called it “over the top” and said he , a weak denunciation but a denunciation nonetheless. Score one for my friend. How about the party leaders, Reid and Pelosi? : ...
***
See also:
Don Surber
I thought the end of summer would narrow the Republican race to 2 men: Rudy and Fred. Well, Fred frittered away the summer, while Mitt started looking good.
Now to my surprise, John McCain — whom I wrote off as McCain-Feingold — is starting to look presidential.
The reason: Iraq. John has been there. Unlike Rudy, Fred and Mitt, John can say the following:
“I served in Vietnam. I knew Vietnam. Vietnam was no friend of mine. Iraq is no Vietnam.”
His “No Surrender” bus tour is getting notice. Jon Stewart suggested it be renamed the “I’ll See You In Hell Express.” ...
A dangerous amendment. By Frederick W. Kagan
Jim Webb, the loquacious freshman senator from Virginia, is again proposing an amendment that would mandate a certain amount of time that soldiers must spend at home between deployments. At first glance, supporting this amendment looks like supporting motherhood and apple pie — Webb’s stated aim is to take care of America’s soldiers at war, and who could possibly object to that? The amendment, furthermore, gives the president the right to waive the requirement “if the President certifies to Congress that the deployment…is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests of the United States.” So voting for this amendment is really just a way to show that you really care about the troops without actually tying the commanders’ hands, right? Wrong. ...
Contributed by Bill Faith on September 14, 2007 at 11:06 AM |