I'm seeing the New York Times drum up some malcontent paratroopers to aid in their countersurge and campaign to smear Gen. Petraeus. The Enemedia is ramping up like never before. The cards are on the table, and I'm getting disgusted with Progressive Liberal Socialists. I'm afraid I'll have to turn away and take a breath of fresh air for a moment. So let's talk about something else important.

Not in any particular order, my top ten Country & Western artists of all time:

Merle Haggard
Bob Wills & the Texas Playboys
Johnny Cash
Don Edwards
Ray Price
Willie & Waylon (counts as one)
Patsy Cline
Chet Atkins
Ernest Tubb
Tom Morrell & the Time Warped Top Hands

Not definitive, just my picks.

And the hits keep coming. Nancy Pelosi besmirched General Petraeus' report before it has even been given. And now her remarks are being repackaged by the Hard Left European Enemedia. In the Times Online, in an article called

Americans doubt ‘General Betraeus’ over troop surge:

we read:

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2284289.ece?Submitted=true

Who are these Americans who doubt this man but admire Bahir Assad? I think you know. These people don't deserve the freedoms they live under. And the Anti American journalists are quoting Pelosi's treasonous remarks freely.

Opponents of the troop surge believe that President George W Bush has been hiding behind Petraeus’s reputation for too long.

Now we will have to endure the slings and arrows of all these retired "wish I was the boss or the Democratic President" military officers like the ones who said we were bogged down outside Baghdad, or that we wouldn't be able to defeat Saddam. Anti Americans one and all. Selfish politicians.

It's time for hearings on Un American activities.

Do you trust the leader of Syria to tell the truth, or do you trust the finest American General? This takes no time to answer, and says all we need to know about you. Do you love America, or do you hate America? There is no nuancing here, it's wide open for all to see. The Senate Majority Leader, who is trying to undermine any positive view of our military's efforts in Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, went to Syria wearing her scarf and groveled at the feet of Bashir Assad, a thug murderer who seeks to conquer Lebanon.  A pathetically embarrassing display of her lack of fundamental knowledge about the world beyond her doorstep. And now, with the military leader of the next finest generation of Americans, ready to tell America what the progress in Iraq is, Susan Jones in CNSNews reports on Pelosi:

"For a long time the Administration has hidden behind the name of General David Petraeus, saying the September report will be his. We all knew this would be the President's report," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a news release on Thursday.

They are besmirching General Petraeus and negating the report before it has even been given. So you follow Pelosi's spin, or you do as Harry Reid said months ago, listen to the Generals. Who are you going to believe. That's what we want to know about what kind of American you are. We already know what kind of Americans Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Barack Obama,  and Jon Cary are. Traitors. I don't want to hear how they care deeply about this country. I don't want to hear about how they are misguided by their ideology.There needs to be a national discussion about what the nature of treason is.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war works for me.

Leading the lynch mob, CNN. A phony push poll with pre-decided results. Probably champagne and confetti in the newsroom when the story was launched. Guess what guys, your baloney will not fly. Harry Reid said listen to the generals, and THATS what we'll do.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll.

Brazen partisan ideological media manipulation of the facts before they're even presented. At least the Europeans have a reason to hate America, but the far Left here is beyond shameful. Journalism itself is a discredited occupation. Randall Hoven in American Thinker has started a list of Journalists or "writers" caught in a lack of integrity. Starts out with 62 cases.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/its_not_just_scott_beauchamp.html

Next is the McClatchey newspapers. Leila Fadel writes:

BAGHDAD — Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq’s future, saying they’ve yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.

I doubt David Petraeus will read a report with the same sentiments. We are being set up here by the Left, folks. Yes the same Leftist biased journalists who did this in the news room of the Seattle Times:

"When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom. . . . As we head into a major political year, now's a good time to remember: Please keep your personal politics to yourself."

This account appeared in the WSJ. Why should the MSM start keeping their personal politics to themselves after the last decade of furiously trying to sway public opinion to their partisan beliefs? Joe Scarborough related this  story about the MSNBC newsroom:

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end.

The only good news about the Enemedia is this. Breitbart reports:

News audiences are ditching television and newspapers and using the Internet as their main source of information, in a trend that could eventually see the demise of local papers, according to a new study Wednesday.

"As online use has increased, the audiences of older media have declined," Harvard University professor Thomas Patterson said in a report on the year-long study issued by Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Lets' pray for the continued ascendancy of the New Media, and the death of the Old.

There is talk about who'll be the vice presidential candidate in 2008. Many people, including myself think Mike Huckabee would be a great VP if not the President. Many other names are being tossed into the ring of discussion. Reid Wilson in the RCP blog writes about the possible candidates for the Vice Presidency.

Republican Huckabee, should his second-place showing in the straw poll not be enough to carry him to the top, seems to be the most likely current member of the GOP field to wind up in the veep slot. If the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, who better to serve the role of attack dog than a former governor of a state closely affiliated with her? Huckabee's debate performances have been uniformly strong, and his stump speech -- delivered without notes in Ames as others used a teleprompter -- makes even some liberals nod along in agreement. He's a conservative from the South, but one who defies stereotypes and whose easy going manner and message of compassionate conservatism will resonate well beyond Dixie.

Of course, Wilson is speculating. The presidential candidate's running mate is chosen by the candidate. So all the names like, Mark Sanford or Tim Pawlenty are just grist for the hot stove mill. Which leads to the name not mentioned. Ever. In spite of a small bloggers' campaign (not reaching the level of the Paulbots though) to (I don't know how) achieve the nomination for a little known GOP governor, there has been absolutely none (to my knowledge) talk of nominating Sarah Palin.

With the Democrats gnashing their teeth and grasping for any hint of bad news, it seemed likely Al Queda and the Iranian backed forces in Iraq would try to neutralize any good momentum swing from a positive report from General Petraeus by mounting a large scale offensive in September. And the Liberal Progressive Party stands gasping and drooling in anticipation, their accommodating Mainstream Media ready, pens in hand to spread the news that we are losing in Vietnam, oh wait, check that,...Iraq.

But Rueters has reported that General Petraeus is not going to sit and wait for the Democratic sanctioned counter offensive.

U.S. and Iraqi forces launched an offensive against al Qaeda and "Iranian-supported" Shi'ite militants across Iraq on Monday in anticipation of an expected surge in violence.

But as I've said here before, the political divide will be the fall back position for the Democrats if the armed struggle fails. That may not be enough.

In Baghdad, leaders of Iraq's divided Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni Arab communities held a series of bilateral talks ahead of an expected summit this week.

 

The summit is aimed at healing the deep mistrust that has paralysed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's national unity government and plunged it into its worst crisis.

 

"Everything will be on the table. It is like the days when we were forming the government, except that Maliki himself is not going to be replaced," said a Shi'ite official familiar with the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

There has been a reasonable amount of hype over the Tet like offensive, supposed coinciding with Petraeus' report. So much so, that the Democrats could be portrayed as being invested in that attack. But if General Petraeus is successful in preventing it, and there is some progress in the political front, and if more evidence of Iranian involvement in revealed, than the Democrats may have finally hung themselves. It could be one of the most spectacular September's in recent political history.

Will these times make General David Petraeus or will he shape the times?

Things being the way they've been for the last year, 2008 will be telling about the future of the GOP. Either it cracks up, or conservatives crack down, and oust the RINOs in office who refused to embrace the ideas and philosophy of it's conservative base. RINOs in congress must be wondering the same thing. MSM outlet, LA Times reports:

Taken together, these forces have winnowed the number of Republican moderates, especially in the Senate. Fewer than half a dozen Republican senators (such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine) still qualify as moderates. Their numbers are so attenuated that they now exert influence almost solely when they align with maverick conservatives (such as Graham, Hagel or Virginia's John Warner), whose numbers now top those of true moderates. But even combined, the two groups' size in both congressional chambers remains modest. In the House, for instance, only 20 Republicans (out of more than 230) voted against a majority of their caucus even as much as 15% of the time during the last Congress.

What's interesting, is that the political spectrum in America is now so skewed by Liberal Progressive Socialism, that Liberals like Warner, Graham, Collins and Snow are seen as moderate. That's only because the Far Left Anti War nutcase moonbats make them seem so in relative terms.


These so called moderates and mavericks are the only hope for the Progressive Agenda, and as such are enemies number one of conservatives. The Specters, Voinovich's and Warners of congress must go. There's got to be an uprising of the base in the primaries for that to happen. And it just may happen. But the LA Times asserts:

This difference is rooted in the fact that the Democrats today are much more of a coalition party than the Republicans: Polls show that only about half of Democratic voters consider themselves liberals, while three-fourths or more of Republicans call themselves conservatives. That means to win elections, Democrats depend more than Republicans on the votes of moderates -- which compels them to accept more dissent from party orthodoxy.

This is assuming independents are moderate. Recent polling suggests Independents crave a return to "Reaganism" yet dislike the term conservative. Sounds like the Great Dumbed Down Moderate Middle isn't so moderate after all, just asleep at the wheel. The challenge is for the GOP to wake them up.

If there has ever been a greater need, a moment to step up and act your country's defense, than I can't remember it. This is the moment of great opportunity for the New York Times. In an action that has become their specialty, the New York Times could set up in Iraq, and use it's seasoned and skilled crack journalism corps to help the mission there. How? By doing what they do best. We're hearing that the National Intelligence Estimate will predict a massive Tet offensive to offset Petraeus' positive report in September. We need the Times in there, to do the grunt work of the ink stained wretches. In short, LEAK THE ENEMY'S PLANS AND WHEREABOUTS. You are masters of undermining a war effort, and it's clear you've been criticized as trying to defeat the United States. Here's your chance to make it up.

The NIE is going to be fodder for the desperate Democrats and their MSM allies. It contains predictions of a civil war (we should leave then, right?) and paints the political reconciliation as unlikely (we should leave then, right?). You are going to hear those two things, over and over and over and over. And of course, the NIE also says positive things you'll NEVER hear in the MSM. Politico's report says:

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, however, told reporters in a briefing then that the NIE did “suggest that we can succeed with the right policies, and we think we've developed the right policy, the right strategy, the right approach.” ...The late draft includes a success story for the administration: the rising resistance Sunni leaders have been showing to al Qaeda in Iraq. The Sunnis increasingly have accepted the contention of the U.S.-led coalition that Al Qaeda in Iraq is an irritant. ...the NIE is likely to include hopeful signs. The official would not predict the document’s exact content, but pointed to an increased number of Iraqis giving tips about insurgents and other bad agents, more Iraqis joining the country’s security forces, the drop-off of attacks in some area from 30 to 40 a day to one a day or less, and an overall reduction in sectarian violence in some areas.

Now, the Democrats are praying that Al Queda can unleash such a large attack, that kills so many American troops, that they can convince the American people that the war is unwinnable. The question is, how many American's will remember the lesson of Tet?

Here it comes. USA today's opinion piece proclaims:

But the point of the surge is to create breathing space for national reconciliation and responsible government, not simply to delay civil war, and the dysfunctional central government in Baghdad is looking weaker by the day.That raises additional questions about the lessons of Basra. Does it mean that U.S. forces need to stay, fight and die for as long as it takes to achieve stability? Or does it mean that trying to separate warring sects is fool's errand and that the United States should withdraw fast?

Wrong, USAToday. The point is to allow the Iraqi Army time enough to gain enough strength to maintain law and order. That's environment that will allow the political process to remain political, and not become armed clashes.

    The lesson from Basra is that tribal bloodletting will return the moment the troops leave.

Wrong, USAToday. The lesson from Basra is if  you cut & run before the Iraqi Army is ready, you'll condemn thousands to death.


The Enemedia spin machine ramps up. They want to lose this struggle in Iraq in the worst way. We've got to reject their false premises and demand peace through victory.

Reuters had to bite the bullet and publish good news about our Military's success in Iraq. Even so, it was with the caveat, "clams".

U.S. commander claims success in key Iraq province goes on to say that Al Queda is fleeing wherever the surging US military arrives to take control. Of course, then Rueters contradicts itself to imply that it's not the enemy there, but sectarian groups.

If they're running away, the only people left there are Iraqi's you boneheads. It looks like the areas we're gaining control of are being fumigated of foreign fighters. Bit by bit, we are winning. Michael Yon has been documenting the success we have had in Baquba as we take control of the area, and the militia's join us in fighting al Queda. So notice that this latest report of success is a continuation of that effort.

The Surge is working;

I'm telling you, the Dems are desperate. We should start hearing a concerted effort to focus on the Iraqi government as the reason to leave Iraq in the very near future. God bless the United States Military.

Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports and the Amnesty Bill. The Media has wanted to paint these events as the Conservatives cracking up. The masters of perception spinning the understanding of the public. These were not, as Rush would say, crack ups, but crack downs. We the conservative base reject the leftward shift of the Republican party, and the propaganda intended to scare us into line.

For example, in the Economist, we hear:

this mighty movement is in deep trouble. Veteran activists are sunk in gloom (“I've never seen conservatives so downright fed up,” says Richard Viguerie, a conservative stalwart). And the other side is (celebrating). Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, describes the shift from conservatism as “breathtaking”.

The Democrats are well positioned to retake the White House in 2008. True, the Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, a “big tent” Republican who combines liberal views on abortion and gay marriage with stellar credentials as “America's mayor”, is a strong candidate. The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, suffers from high negatives and a scandal-prone husband. But the Clinton operation looks far more professional than Mr Giuliani's—and he has plenty of scandals of his own.

The Leftist Media is already telling people the Democrats have won in 2008. Heck, there are the non-conservative Republicans at Townhall who are saying the same thing. And they will continue to get louder and louder as the weeks go on. Even to the point where on election night, they'll proclaim the Left's victory in the coup-de-grace of spin in exit polling propaganda.

But that's not what's happening in my opinion. The Right is maintaining it's principles as the GOP drifts towards Bill Clinton's favorite ground. The Middle. The Right see's progress in Iraq shaking the confidence of the Left. We see a Democratic congress inept and unable to get an approval rating higher than George Bush's. We see the Modern Democratic Party hi-jacked by the Far Left Extreme Socialists, and that is no small fact. 

The Wall Street Journal writes:

New Republic scribe Noam Scheiber let loose a few weeks back in a New York Times hit piece, calling the DLC "radioactive" and "quaint," gloating that its "fading influence was good news for the entire party," and arguing that it should just get lost. Markos Moulitsas, chief flogger-blogger on the Daily Kos, this week slammed the DLC as a group that wants to "blur distinctions with the GOP," and reveling that Democrats had won in 2006 because liberals like himself had "forced" Americans to pick sides.

The real target audience for these pronouncements is the Democratic presidential field, and the threat is clear: Touch the DLC, and you will be (to use a favorite, medieval Kos word) "punished." At least a few activists danced a victory lap, too, a few weeks back when every last Democratic candidate spurned the DLC's annual convention in Nashville, instead turning up at Mr. Moulitsas's YearlyKos event in Chicago.

The DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council, a MODERATE voice that got Clinton elected by sliding into the middle. That won't happen this time. Keep your powder dry, wait until you see the whites of their eyes, and keep your eyes on the prize. Conservatism is a winning idea for candidates, and for America itself.

The desperate hours are drawing near for the Democrats, the MSM, the Iranians, and the Islamic Jihadist Killers in Iraq as General Petraeus readies his September status report for congress. Already we've been witness to a change in the wind on the ground in Iraq. Mainstream Media has been forced to begrudgingly admit that the Greatest Military in the History of the World is beginning to have success with it's plan after three months.

So what will the masters of perception control decide after nights of hand wringing and sweaty brows?

They will change the premise of the argument. (Something the GOP needs to learn more about). It won't be about not controlling the situation on the ground. Not about tactical success. Not about law and order.

It'll be a focus purely on politics. The government in Iraq has let the foxes into the henhouse, and they are wreaking havoc. By trying to be inclusive (in good faith) and including all elements of Iraq'a political culture have a democratic say in the future, they've given the enemies of stability the opening to destroy the only chance they have.

Iraq the model writes:

First there is the Accord Front. This bloc apparently trying through the withdrawal from the cabinet and preventing the passage of legislations by insisting on taking the recess to show that the government and particularly Maliki have failed.
Their moving in this direction suggests that they are betting that by proving their point they will have a chance to oust Maliki and form a new government by joining forces with other opposition groups namely Allawi's bloc, the Dialogue Front since these two blocs supported the Accord's decision and Allawi's is even planning to follow the Accord's steps out of the cabinet. The Fadheela Party and some independent UIA members could be potential partners as well.

Second we have the pro-withdrawal anti-American factions in the parliament; mainly represented the Sadr bloc in addition to some radical elements from the UIA and a few from the two Sunni blocs who are not getting along well with the moderate wing in the bloc. These simply want to halt the legislative process at this point hoping that this would put more pressure on Washington to withdraw from Iraq.

IRT goes on to suggest they fear the possibility of some kind of coup. Whether that is a possibility or not, the point is that the political climate is much worse than the tactical situation on the ground, and the Progressive Socialist Democrat Anti Military party of America will harp and whine and scream about the political problems in Iraq. This have resulted from trying to create a democratic government before stabilizing the security situation, and I'd bet this is very frustrating and concerning to General Petraeus.

The Democrats are sharpening their knives.

As the UK succumbs to Liberalism, and surrenders to Jihadism, we see the results in clear reality today in Basra, where UK forces are drawing down, and running away. 2o people were killed in a shopping area by Sunni insurgents. And the media is trumpeting it as some kind of validation that our effort in Iraq is failing.

Failing? The only thing failing is the will of the UK and the Democratic party to win our battle with Islamic Jihadist Killers. What is happening in Basra is exactly what the Right is saying will happen all over Iraq if we leave too soon. Listen to the generals you moonbat morons. The Independent reports:

It was, however, the bombing in Basra, in the Shia heartland, which highlighted the level of anarchy in the country and cast further doubt on the repeated assertions by Tony Blair and George Bush that the security situation was improving in Iraq.

Only a Liberal can spin his own disaster to be the fault of George Bush. Let's say it again. If we leave too soon, millions of people will be killed. There is a telling piece of information though.

Iraqi fighters (terrorists, Islamists...) appeared to be using fewer suicide attacks and relying more on mortars and rockets.

They're running out of volunteers to blow themselves into a bloody mist. Something's going right. You'll never hear it from some Liberal rags, no matter how successful we are. Accept it.

The Media worldwide is invested in defeating the United States. And the wire services will be only too glad to pass on the stories concocted by foreign papers like the Guardian, the Independent or the Times that try and place doubt about our success in Iraq. They're ramping up for their own Tet offensive. The Enemedia and the Democratic party intend to defeat General Petraeus in September and the character slurs towards the General who was unanimously approved by congress are now starting.

Will the GOP fire back and defend one of our great generals' honor?

Hillary Clinton doesn't like "liberal". Although she'd prefer Progressive as a label, a phrase I've heard recently (I wish I knew who coined it) is much, much more appropriate. She's been very bold in the use of communistic philosophy in her speeches, and of course, the accommodating Mainstream Media has given her a 100% pass. But to judge her at face value, her intentions are nothing less than communism.  And so goes the hard left, Soros backed, Kos/Move.on ruled Democratic party.

They aren't Liberals, they aren't Progressives, they are Neo-Comms.

Jonah Goldberg in USA today writes:

Clinton's answer taps into the common complaint on the left that the word "liberal" has fallen into disrepute not because of the policies of liberals, but thanks to the villainously cynical distortions of conservatives. "The greatest triumph that conservatives ever achieved," liberal columnist Clarence Page recently complained, "is to make liberals embarrassed to call themselves 'liberal.' "

Right. The failures of the Great Society, busing, racial quotas, high taxes, the Vietnam War (both its beginning and end), Jimmy Carter's "malaise," the nuclear freeze movement, lax law enforcement, speech codes, abortion on demand, bilingual education and, of course, Michael Dukakis: We're expected to believe none of these things can be weighed against liberalism. Liberalism, after all, is never wrong. It must be those mustache-twirling henchmen Lee Atwater and Karl Rove who are to blame.

When a Democrat talks about going after "big oil", to "take" some of their profits, that's not capitalism. When they talk about silencing talk radio, surrendering to Islamic Killers, run a House of Representatives by cheating and lying, attempting to build a voter base of illegal aliens & felons, that is anything but progressive. No, thats nothing more than the same old, I wish it was still the 60's, aren't protests cool, the man is keeping me down, free stuff with no responsibility, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs Communism, masked in the popular cloak of Progressive Socialism.

They beat us in Vietnam, it'll be a little different this time, if general Petraeus has his say.