Krumm: How did you spend Indepndence Day?

The title question asked is from BobKrumm.com here is an excerpt:

BAGHDAD – How are you spending your 4th of July holiday? While most Americans probably slept, 1,215 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines raised their right hands and committed to a combined 5,500 years of additional service during the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military. Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, members of all services, representing all 50 states took the oath administered by Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.

Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

and

Among those in attendance were service members from the more than two dozen Allies serving with MNF-I. Along with their American counterparts, each appeared in awe of the sacrifice of these incredible men and women. Each of the reenlistees knows full well the costs of war, and yet, they chose to stand with their units, their mission, and each other. It was as humbling an experience as I have ever witnessed. On this 4th of July, while you celebrate around grills and coolers all across America, keep in mind the 1,215 who allow us that privilege.

Jeff Jamaleldine

Please read this story:

The Good German

I welcome this brave young man as a citizen and will remember his words:

"But someone has to achieve that peace."

WSJ: Jolie 1, Obama 0

James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal writes:

Jolie 1, Obama 0
Actress Angelina Jolie recently visited Iraq in her role as a "goodwill ambassador" for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. In a Washington Post op-ed, Jolie urges a continued U.S. presence in Iraq for humanitarian reasons:

and

It's quite a contrast with the attitude of Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama, who said last summer that even preventing genocide was not a sufficient reason for a continuing presence in Iraq. What does it say about the Democratic Party that it seems poised to nominate someone who, on the most pressing concern of the day, is less morally serious than a Hollywood starlet?

I applaud Angelina Jolie for stating a position that will be wildly unpopular in Hollyweird. She has also earned the right to be called a star rather than a starlet.

Media Stocks Poor Performance Is Deserved

The Gateway Pundit explains at least one reason for the poor performance of media and publishing stocks relative to the market over the last 5 years. They cannot be trusted to report truthfully or comprehensively and thus no one on any side of an issue knows if what the media reports is even remotely factual. Go to Gateway Pundit's Post and read it if you wish to be infuriated:

Its a Quagmire!... Media Reports 6 Bogus Stories in 6 Weeks!

In roughly six and a half weeks the mainstream media reported 6 bogus stories from Iraq and Afghanistan.
There certainly could be more.
They all reflected poorly on the US and US military.

Isn't it past time that the media be held accountable for their horrible record?

And... Is it really surprising that only 29% of Americans, Germans and Brits trust their media?

For those of you who don't read the article I want to point out for all these false stories no corrections have been issued by the media outlet that erroneously spread the story.

Thanks to Instapundit for linking to this article, you won't see anything about this on your conventional meedia source. charts of Publishing industry and Broadcast and Cable relative to SP500 courtesy of Fullermoney.

What the frenchocrats Really Want

Defeat at Any Price
Why Petraeus's testimony was a nightmare for the Democrats.
by David Gelernter

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left.


But if we only remember the dead and not the cause for which they died, we dishonor and make nonsense of the noblest of all sacrifices. And we mock a president who asked that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." That is the issue when Americans die in combat. Do we finish the mission and invest their deaths with meaning? Or do we shrug them off, inscribe their names on some sepulchral black wall in a ditch, and walk away?

Innocent and proven innocent.

All charges dropped against marines investigated for crimes at Haditha. Pennsylvania's braying jackass of a congressman, Jack Murtha had pronounced them guilty months ago of course because it suited him politically. Will he apologize as loudly and publicly to these men?

Good News? From the New York Times?

Today in the op-ed at NY Times Michael O,Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack write:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Read the whole thing. i have to say it is a pleasure to see times reporters actually go to Iraq to find out what is happening rather than just using talking points from the frenchocrats.

One incumbent I would vote for!

I am posting a copy of a speech by Joe Lieberman demonstrating principle before political convenience.

Time for Choosing

Here is a speech by one of the few statesmen in Congress -Joe Lieberman. It is worth reading.

Editors note: This is the text of a speech Senator Joe Lieberman (I., Conn. ) delivered to a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Thank you so much for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be here among so many friends. Now, I know there are some who are probably wondering - what is a nice Independent Democrat from Connecticut doing at a Republican event like this?

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year and as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.

In all seriousness, many of you in this room stood with me last year through the long journey up a winding road that was my 2006 reelection campaign. You came to my side without regard for party affiliation, and you stayed there even after I ran as an Independent but said I would caucus with the Democrats. Your non-partisanship in my race is a model for what our politics should be. I thank you personally and deeply for it. I could not have won without it. And I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to vindicate your confidence. We gather at a critical time for the future of our country.

The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency - although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.

Part of the disagreement we face over Iraq comes down to a genuine difference of opinion.

On the one hand, there are those who believe, as I do, that the struggle against Islamist extremism really is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus - our commander in Iraq - recently said, Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamist extremism.

On the other hand, there are those who reject this view – who genuinely believe that the threat of Islamist extremism is overstated, or that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, or that the war there is lost, or not worth fighting to win.

It is my deeply held conviction that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong - and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the United States, for Iraq, and for the entire Middle East, including Israel and our moderate Arab allies.

Let there be no doubt - an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today. It would vindicate the hope of our enemies that America is weak and that we can be driven to retreat by terrorism, and it would confirm the fear of our friends - not only in Iraq, but throughout the world - that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot claim to be tough on terrorism while demanding that our military withdraw from Iraq , because it is the terrorists - particular Al Qaeda - that our military is fighting in Iraq .

You cannot claim to be committed to defeating Al Qaeda, while demanding that we abandon the heart of the Middle East to Al Qaeda.

And you cannot claim to be tough on Iran , while demanding the very thing that the mullahs want most of all - the retreat of the American military from the Middle East in defeat, leaving a vacuum that Iran will rush to fill.

I recognize that this war has been controversial, and there are those who oppose it on principle. I respect that. But too much of the debate we are having today about withdrawal from Iraq has little or nothing to do with principle, or with reality in Iraq .

It is about politics and partisanship here in Washington .

For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it. If the war is going badly, it is bad for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that. For many Republicans, the unpopularity of this war and this President has begun to shake their will. They say that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because the American people tell the pollsters they want out. If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.

Republicans in Congress delude themselves if they think they will be helping either themselves, their party, or their country if they now attempt to wash their hands of Iraq, out of a sudden sense of political anxiety.

Democrats in Congress delude themselves if they think they will not be held accountable for the bloody consequences of the retreat from Iraq they seek.

The fact is, a loss to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq would be devastating to our security. These are fateful days and critical decisions we are making about Iraq . We must make them with our eye on the safety of Americas next generation, not the outcome of Americas next election. It is to the everlasting credit of President Bush that in the war against Islamist extremism he has shown the courage and \steadfastness to stand against the political passions of the moment. I have never hesitated to express disagreement with the President on any issue when I felt he was wrong - and I have criticized his administration many times for the serious mistakes I believe it made in prosecuting the war in Iraq .

But let me tell you this: I believe that each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not believe that decisions about war should be driven by poll numbers. And each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not confuse what is popular with what is right for our security as a nation. The public opinion polls may not reflect this today, but I believe history will tomorrow.

My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing. If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved. But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation. That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East . It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.

Will this be the moment in history when America gives up - when Al Qaeda breaks our will, when our enemies surge forward, when we turn our backs on our friends and begin a long retreat from our principles and promise as a nation?

Or will this be the moment when America steps forward, when we pull together, when we hold fast to the courage of our convictions, when with a new strategy, and a new commander on the ground - we begin to turn the tide toward victory in this long and difficult war?

I know that we can rise above the anger and smallness of our politics. I know we can rise to the greatness that this moment demands of us.

The question is - will we choose to do so?

I would like to close today by sharing with you a story from my last visit to Iraq a few months ago. It was in Anbar province in western Iraq - the center of the insurgency - a part of the country that conventional wisdom last year dismissed as hopeless.

In fact, on September 11, 2006, the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting that even the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq had concluded that Anbar was "lost," and our position there was "beyond repair."

I was in Anbar last December, on a forward operating base just outside Ramadi, the capital of the province. As one of the briefings with our military commanders ended, a colonel who had been sitting in the back of the room came up to me. He said something that I carry with me to this day - something that I hope you will carry with you as well. He said: "Sir, I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here, we want to finish this fight. And we know we can win it."

Today, five months later, Anbar has been dramatically transformed. Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and - yes - no less than the New York Tim es reports that we have turned the corner there.

My friends, now is not the time for despair. Now is the time for resolve. Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion. Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle Americas voters have always honored. I ask you to plead with every member of Congress you can in the days and weeks ahead - Do not surrender to hopelessness. Do not succumb to defeat.Do not give in to fear.

Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America .

Believe, like that colonel, in why we are fighting in Iraq , and know, as he and his soldiers know, that we can and must win there."

Thank you very much!

It is no coincidence Lieberman was forced out of his political party. Neither party can tolerate statesmanship ahead of partisanship.

ps. the Instapundit points out related thoughts from Bill Hobbs

The rascism beneath the rhetoric

The anti-victory crowd stamps it feet and brays "pullout pullout now" ignoring the fact that some real progress is being made in some of the worst areas in Iraq. Huffington, the NY Times, and every bloviating politician posturing for office wants to be identified with opposing the war. But whether they opposed the war initially or not they must deal with conditions now and consider what Iraq will become. Their language is always bring our troops home and make peace not war. No solutions or even mention of what would happen in Iraq or to the people there.
The truth is these frenchocrats don't care about what will happen there. Chaos, bloodshed and the potential misery of hundreds of thousands doesn't matter to them because deep down these privileged voices believe the Iraqis are just a bunch of uncivilized camel jockeys who have never and could never govern themselves in a democracy. So to the surrender seekers this is all a waste of time and money, far less important than the obsession with damaging George Bush. The complete disdain for any consideration of the situation we would be leaving in Iraq is rascism disguised as humanitarianism.
Keep reading The Instapundit for topical links on this subject.

the gutless and ethically challenged media confesses

The Instapundit gets an interesting and infuriating email from the media.

UPDATE: A journalist whose name you'd recognize emails:

Yon's story doesn't get attention because it is humiliating.

It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., - can’t do squat about such determined use of force.

Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.

So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. - doesn’t exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.

Please don’t be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers.

He might have included the communist party, klu klux klan, or the nazis, or any other grup of lying propagandists. i would much prefer to think media bias comes arises naturally from strong political views than from simple greed and lack of integrity.