Vets for Freedom Hope to Impact Media and Political Class

[Classact]

I think that the tactical gains of the US military are laudable.

I have never doubted the abilities or the commitment of our troops to perform their missions. We will always prevail on the battlefields of Iraq because we are and always will be the superior fighting force.

I have always doubted the abilities of the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds who live in the artificially created "country" we call Iraq to put aside their millennia old enmity and forge a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy. I would suggest that the sectarian violence that has recently started to percolate again is an indication that my doubts may be justified.

I'll address your third paragraph... it makes no sense in the context of the recent violence... the recent violence is associated with Shiite element supported by Iran against other Shiites and not against Sunni's or Kurds. These violent gangs are being dealt with as we would deal with a like sized gang in LA backed by Mexico. The government is dealing with the criminal element and continued interference from Iran will result in war with Iran. The gangs would not exist without Iranian support.

[retiredman]

I'll address your third paragraph... it makes no sense in the context of the recent violence... the recent violence is associated with Shiite element supported by Iran against other Shiites and not against Sunni's or Kurds. These violent gangs are being dealt with as we would deal with a like sized gang in LA backed by Mexico. The government is dealing with the criminal element and continued interference from Iran will result in war with Iran. The gangs would not exist without Iranian support.

so you think that Muqtada Al Sadr is the leader of a criminal gang? Do you think that is why he is the most influential shiite in Iraq?

[red states rule]

so you think that Muqtada Al Sadr is the leader of a criminal gang? Do you think that is why he is the most influential shiite in Iraq?

He is one of your heros that is for sure

[retiredman]

He is one of your heros that is for sure

not at all...

can you answer the question I posed instead of just tossing out insults?

[red states rule]

not at all...

can you answer the question I posed instead of just tossing out insults?

You whining about somebody tossing out insults? Now that is funny

[theHawk]

I think that the tactical gains of the US military are laudable.

I have never doubted the abilities or the commitment of our troops to perform their missions. We will always prevail on the battlefields of Iraq because we are and always will be the superior fighting force.

I have always doubted the abilities of the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds who live in the artificially created "country" we call Iraq to put aside their millennia old enmity and forge a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy. I would suggest that the sectarian violence that has recently started to percolate again is an indication that my doubts may be justified.

Thats probably the most sensible thing you've ever said. I agree that these Muslims are probably going to have a hard time accepting our idea of Democracy. I think we've lived up to our stated goal in Operation Iraqi Freedom of giving them a chance at a freely elected government. The only real problem that remains is AQ and like terrorist groups, which is why we're probably going to need a presense in Iraq for a long time. The key thing its to get US troops out of patrolling the streets and more into support role conducting offensive raids into known terrorist cells/camps.

[retiredman]

Thats probably the most sensible thing you've ever said. I agree that these Muslims are probably going to have a hard time accepting our idea of Democracy. I think we've lived up to our stated goal in Operation Iraqi Freedom of giving them a chance at a freely elected government. The only real problem that remains is AQ and like terrorist groups, which is why we're probably going to need a presense in Iraq for a long time. The key thing its to get US troops out of patrolling the streets and more into support role conducting offensive raids into known terrorist cells/camps.

I think we need to be very clear about the differences between islamic extremism and the state-less terror organization that espouses it - Al Qaeda, and Iraqi nationalist militias who are fighting for dominance in the national structure of Iraq - like Sadr's Mehdi militia. While neither type of group is particularly fond of America, we really only have a beef with the former and should allow the latter to play whatever role it is going to play in the drama that Iraqis must play out themselves to determine what, if anything, a multicultural Iraq might look like. I honestly believe that a three state division of the territory that we call Iraq would be the best solution and one that might actually have a chance of success.

[Gaffer]

I think we need to be very clear about the differences between islamic extremism and the state-less terror organization that espouses it - Al Qaeda, and Iraqi nationalist militias who are fighting for dominance in the national structure of Iraq - like Sadr's Mehdi militia. While neither type of group is particularly fond of America, we really only have a beef with the former and should allow the latter to play whatever role it is going to play in the drama that Iraqis must play out themselves to determine what, if anything, a multicultural Iraq might look like. I honestly believe that a three state division of the territory that we call Iraq would be the best solution and one that might actually have a chance of success.

You talk like an iranian apologist. The fighting going on there is between shites. The thug sadr is an iranian puppet. He showed that by hiding out in iran while the surge was getting underway. He and his militia need to be taken out in order for the government to move ahead. Stateless AQ wants iraq as their state. They have been effectively crushed and the last will be dealt with soon. Its all going to come down to confronting iran.

[red states rule]

More liberal media bias on war in Iraq


Media is Absent on Medal of Honor Awardees
Posted By Blackfive
Google News shows that no one, other than local news in San Diego, is covering the awarding of the Medal of Honor to US Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor.

This is quite evident of the MSM's bias. I don't know how you can argue in favor of them today. This story is one that should be told across the nation.

I wasn't going to blog about this today or even post the New York Times and AP's embarrassing report on US Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor. The New York Times printed 78 words about the pending MOH for Mike Monsoor and had to correct the story. Three sentences for a man like Mike...

I checked my frustration because I hoped that they might print something today about the Navy SEAL who sacrificed himself to save his teammates. I thought, maybe, it would make for a nice front page story this morning.

"The Paper of Record" did not print one word.

You can email the Public Editor, Mr. Clark Hoyt, and ask, politely, why the Times chose not to run a story about Michael Monsoor on the day of his award.

[At this point, it is difficult to propose that the American public is at fault in the disconnect between the military and our society when you have such blatant disregard in "the free press" for such uncommon American valor. This is not the first time, or the second, or the third, that the media has ignored or muted the incredible strength, compassion and will of our military men and women. Remember, the Times dedicated about 400 words to SFC Paul Smith (the first MOH awardee for the War on Terror). At the time, they were publishing dozens of Abu Ghraib stories above the fold on the front the page. Abu Ghraib was an important story. Did it warrant as much attention as it got? Did Paul Smith get as much attention as he deserved?]

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/0...is-absent.html

[Kathianne]

More liberal media bias on war in Iraq


Media is Absent on Medal of Honor Awardees
Posted By Blackfive
Google News shows that no one, other than local news in San Diego, is covering the awarding of the Medal of Honor to US Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor.

This is quite evident of the MSM's bias. I don't know how you can argue in favor of them today. This story is one that should be told across the nation.

I wasn't going to blog about this today or even post the New York Times and AP's embarrassing report on US Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor. The New York Times printed 78 words about the pending MOH for Mike Monsoor and had to correct the story. Three sentences for a man like Mike...

I checked my frustration because I hoped that they might print something today about the Navy SEAL who sacrificed himself to save his teammates. I thought, maybe, it would make for a nice front page story this morning.

"The Paper of Record" did not print one word.

You can email the Public Editor, Mr. Clark Hoyt, and ask, politely, why the Times chose not to run a story about Michael Monsoor on the day of his award.

[At this point, it is difficult to propose that the American public is at fault in the disconnect between the military and our society when you have such blatant disregard in "the free press" for such uncommon American valor. This is not the first time, or the second, or the third, that the media has ignored or muted the incredible strength, compassion and will of our military men and women. Remember, the Times dedicated about 400 words to SFC Paul Smith (the first MOH awardee for the War on Terror). At the time, they were publishing dozens of Abu Ghraib stories above the fold on the front the page. Abu Ghraib was an important story. Did it warrant as much attention as it got? Did Paul Smith get as much attention as he deserved?]

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/0...is-absent.html

I think the way the heroes have been portrayed suck, yet if you read the comments RSR, you'll find that Matt made a mistake with this post.

[retiredman]

You talk like an iranian apologist. The fighting going on there is between shites. The thug sadr is an iranian puppet. He showed that by hiding out in iran while the surge was getting underway. He and his militia need to be taken out in order for the government to move ahead. Stateless AQ wants iraq as their state. They have been effectively crushed and the last will be dealt with soon. Its all going to come down to confronting iran.

I am not apologizing for anyone. I am stating my opinion. Just because I think something will happen does not mean that I want it to.

Sadr is the most popular shiite cleric in Iraq. He IS in bed with Iran.... Maliki does not have the clout to take out Sadr and if he pushes TOO hard it will backfire.

Iraq will be an Iranian client state. Not a matter of if....only a matter of when.

[Kathianne]

I am not apologizing for anyone. I am stating my opinion. Just because I think something will happen does not mean that I want it to.

Sadr is the most popular shiite cleric in Iraq. He IS in bed with Iran.... Maliki does not have the clout to take out Sadr and if he pushes TOO hard it will backfire.

Iraq will be an Iranian client state. Not a matter of if....only a matter of when.

But Malaki is not doing what you hoped. In fact, he's meeting Sadr's 'demand' for agreement with Sistani with a plea to order a disbandment of the militia, certainly the move of the 'winner', Another political point gained. Never mind, Hillary said X.

[retiredman]

But Malaki is not doing what you hoped. In fact, he's meeting Sadr's 'demand' for agreement with Sistani with a plea to order a disbandment of the militia, certainly the move of the 'winner', Another political point gained. Never mind, Hillary said X.

did I MISS the disbanding of Sadr's militia?

[red states rule]

How did the liberal media "report" on Gen Petraeus's appearance before Congress?


NBC Stacks Deck Against Petraeus -- and Takes a Shot at McCain Too
By Brent Baker | April 8, 2008 - 23:14 ET

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams led Tuesday's newscast by listing the burden of the Iraq war in years, troops, deaths and cost before Jim Miklaszewski, unlike reporters on ABC and CBS, found it newsworthy to show a man, in the Senate hearing for General David Petraeus, shouting “bring them home!” In the next story, Andrea Mitchell decided to highlight, again unlike ABC or CBS, how John McCain “stumbled...by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite” and Williams turned to Richard Engel, NBC's Iraq reporter, who described Petraeus' decision to end troop withdrawals in July as “frustrating and disheartening in that the rules of the game have changed.” Williams opened:

The war's now five years old. That's longer than U.S. involvement in World War II. There are currently 162,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Death toll is now over 4,000. And the price tag of this war for military operations alone: nearly half a trillion dollars so far.

Before and after audio of a man yelling “bring them home!”, Miklaszewski helpfully suggested: “A protestor voiced what some Americans are demanding for U.S. troops.” In a piece by Mitchell on how the three presidential candidates approached Petraeus, she pointed how that “the Republican Senator also stumbled, briefly, by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite.” She countered: “Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shiite. McCain immediately corrected himself.” So, if he immediately corrected himself, why highlight it?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...hot-mccain-too

[retiredman]

I don't know why the media continues to cover for McCain. Referring to his complete ignorance about sunnis and shiites as "stumbling"... the man knows about as much about Islam as RSR does - next to nothing!