So What About that Bin Ladin Guy?

Apparently, he's been pretty effectively marginilized:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Osama bin Laden remains deeply isolated and has been forced to devote much of his energy to his own security, while his Al-Qaeda terror network remains resilient, CIA Director Michael Hayden said in a speech on Thursday.
"He is putting a lot of energy into his own survival, a lot of energy into his own security. In fact, he appears to be largely isolated from the day-to-day operations of the organization he nominally heads," said Hayden, referring to the Al-Qaeda network.
He suggested that bin Laden was hiding somewhere in the remote Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, where he said Al-Qaeda has regrouped and bolstered its organization.
Hayden described "the sheer challenge of surveying every square mile of that inhospitable and dangerous region," and said "part of the explanation for his survival lies in the fact that he has worked to avoid detection."

The article is a mix of good and bad news, but the important thing to note, which I've said for years, is that taking out Bin Ladin will do virtually nothing in the fight against terrorism. He's been hiding for years, devoting all of his resources to running from the reaper....constantly looking behind to make sure we haven't caught up with him. He has little, if any, real role in the operations, or even the propeganda, of the organization. Yet, they are doing fine without him. Even rebuilding.

Bin Ladin is mostly a figurehead. Yet we've gotten it into our heads that this guy is the be all, end all of terrorism. Finding and killing him would be a huge moral victory for us. But it would also do little to stop terrorism. We were all a twitter when we killed Zarquawi, about how this would be a huge blow to al Quida. And it was...for a day or two. Then they sent in the Egyptian al Masri, and redoubled their efforts. The reality of our fight is complex...but people want simple answers. So we've told everybody that Osama Bin Ladin IS al Quida. It's not even remotely true.

We'd do better getting rid of Zawahiri, al Masri, or al Iraqi. But that's complex, and messy...and people don't have the time or patience for all that.

Why Pakistan Should Concern Us

Ill Take: "They have massive ammounts of WMDs and are going to elect a psychopath for 500 Alex?"

If there's a case to be made against democracy, few countries make it better than Pakistan.
On Saturday, Pakistani legislators will elect a new president to replace Pervez Musharraf, the general-turned-strongman who resigned the office last month.
In one corner there is Mushahid Hussain Sayed, a former journalist and one-time political prisoner of Mr. Musharraf who is nonetheless running as the candidate of the general's old party. Mr. Mushahid, probably the best of the bunch, stands next to no chance of winning.
In another corner there is Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, candidate of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's party. Mr. Sharif -- whose record includes bankrupting his country, presiding over a disastrous military campaign against India, and attempting to implement Sharia law while awarding himself near-dictatorial powers -- has made it clear he intends to gut the powers of the presidency should he return to office.
And then there is Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and leader of the Pakistan People's Party. Mr. Zardari, who has compared himself to Jesus (an innocent accused of crimes he did not commit), is easily one of the most notorious figures in the long parade of horribles that make up the country's political history. He is, of course, expected to win Saturday's ballot handily.
Just how bad is Mr. Zardari? It would be a relief if it were true that he was merely suffering from dementia, a diagnosis offered by two New York psychiatrists last year. But that diagnosis seems to have been produced mainly with a view toward defending himself against corruption charges in a British court.

Read the whole thing.

Thank God Musharraf resigned, right? Right? Ah crap.

Well We Know Who Our Friends Are...

Certainly not Russia

The Russian company building Iran's first nuclear power plant has renewed a commitment to complete the project, the official IRNA news agency reported on Tuesday.
Russia, one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, is building the plant at Bushehr on the Gulf coast of Iran despite a long-running standoff over Tehran's controversial nuclear drive.
The Russian contractor said in December that Bushehr would not come on line before the end of 2008, amid repeated delays in construction, contractual disputes and international tensions over Iran's nuclear programme.

Aw, the fact that Iran is supposed to stop Nuclear production hinders Russia's efforts to make Iran a nuclear power. I might feel bad if not for the fact that Iran wants to kill all their neighbors and I'mm opposed to that. What a shame.

Another Step Towards Victory

Iraqis take control of once-bloody Anbar province

BAGHDAD - American forces on Monday handed over security responsibility to the Iraqis in a province that the U.S. once feared was lost — a sign of the stunning reversal of fortunes since local Sunnis turned against al-Qaida in Iraq.
But a Sunni Arab leader criticized the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to embrace its newfound allies, underlining the threat that sectarian tensions still pose to a lasting peace.
Nevertheless, the transfer of Anbar province, the cradle of the Sunni insurgency and the birthplace of al-Qaida in Iraq, marked a dramatic milestone in America's plan to eventually hand over all 18 provinces to Iraqi control so U.S. troops can go home.
The 25,000 American troops remaining in Anbar will focus on training Iraq's military and police forces and standing by to help if the Iraqis are unable to cope with any surge in violence.

If Obama had had his way, we'd have been turning over Anbar to al Quida, not to the Iraq government. Remember that everytime says that Obama was right on Iraq. Al Quida would've been just like putting Saddam back in power.

That's not change. That's more of the same.

The McClellan "Fiasco"

From Michelle Malkin:

Reader Kevin B. e-mails what McClellan said in his press briefing on March 22, 2004 when asked about Richard Clarke’s book blasting the Bush Administration for 9/11 and CIA intelligence failures:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.

Pot. Kettle.

More like at the time, McClellan was appalled by such disgusting backstabbing and called it what it was. Once he bowed out he realized he could do the same thing and get rich and loved for it.

So, we have a choice to make:
Either Scott McClellan is a liar, making this up for his 15 minutes in the spotlight to become a liberal hero, or he was a coward who had no courage to come forward and actually criticized others who did so.

With the massive paycheck, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

And why in the hell are liberals celebrating this fool who they believe kept his mouth shut until it was too late to do anything about it?

Bin Ladin! Peacemaker!

Cross posted at Say Anything Blog


Bin Ladin's Son Wants to be Peacemaker



Of course, by the first paragraph, it already starts to smell a little fishy:

Omar Osama bin Laden bears a striking resemblance to his notorious father _ except for the dreadlocks that dangle halfway down his back. Then there’s the black leather biker jacket. The 26-year-old does not renounce his father, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he said there is better way to defend Islam than militancy: Omar wants to be an “ambassador for peace” between Muslims and the West.

It’s hard to buy the claims of a man who claims to want peace, but who will not renounce his own father’s terorism. That and he believes there’s a “better way than militancy to defend Islam”. Which, of course, implies that militancy is not a bad way...just not the best. Other passages in the article support this:

Omar lived with the al-Qaida leader in Sudan, then moved with him to Afghanistan in 1996.

There, Omar says he trained at an al-Qaida camp but in 2000 he decided there must be another way and he left his father, returning to his homeland of Saudi Arabia.
“I don’t want to be in that situation to just fight. I like to find another way and this other way may be like we do now, talking,” he said in English.

He suggested his father did not oppose his leaving _ and Alsabah interjected that Omar was courageous in breaking away, but neither elaborated.

No doubt they don’t wish to elaborate because the truth shall not, in this case, set them free. He’s trained in al Quida, under the guidance of his father for four years. Then suddenly he has an epiphany? And his father approves? If you’re not buying it, you’re not alone. His own words undermine his “messenger of peace” schtick.

Omar doesn’t criticize his father and says Osama bin Laden is just trying to defend the Islamic world.

“My father thinks he will be good for defending the Arab people and stop anyone from hurting the Arab or Muslim people any place in the world,” he said, noting that the West didn’t have a problem with his father when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Omar is convinced a truce between the West and al-Qaida is possible.

“My father is asking for a truce but I don’t think there is any government (that) respects him. At the same time they do not respect him, why everywhere in the world, they want to fight him? There is a contradiction,” he said.

Omar is not a man of peace. He is simply another jihadist trying a different tactic than his father. His rhetoric is no different from his father’s. If only the West would stop being so militaristic, peace could be possible with al Quida. It’s not that Osama is a bad guy...everyone is out to get him! al Quida is standing up for the little guy, while the West is out to crush innocent Muslims everywhere.


What Omar doesn’t mention is what peace with his father will entail. Standing by while Israel is destroyed. Withdrawing from Muslim lands. And converting to Islam.


Omar is a man in his father’s mold. Like the jihadist apologists of the West, he lays blame for the whole situation at America’s feet. And he lies about what peace will entail. It is not that he has renounced violence. It is that he has abandoned it in favor of a better, and more successful tactic. That he is pursuing the same goal, with a different tactic is why his father blessed him leaving the al Quida compund. Omar understands what his father does not. That that corrode of society from within, the slow creep of Sharia from groups like CAIR, that slowly breaks down a society’s resistance as they succumb to the message of a peaceful Islam (all while submitting to it), is more effective than suicide attacks and terrorism, which has proven, time and time again, to strengthen the resolve of America.


That makes Omar bin Ladin a more dangerous man than his father could ever dream of being.

"I'll Punch Anyone in the Nose Who Says it Again!"

Christopher Hitchens sounds almost unglued attacking Bush because of a relatively simple comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Any argument which starts by "his faith is stupid can't go much of anywhere...

Via the Guardian:

How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To invoke Vietnam was a blunder too far for Bush


The Presidents's crass comparison between Iraq and war in south east Asia was the most ludicrous misreading of history

Christopher Hitchens
Sunday August 26, 2007
The Observer


How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
It also explains the unforgivable intervention that Bush made into the private life of the Schiavo family: leaving his Texas ranch to try and keep 'alive' a woman whose autopsy showed that her brain had melted to below flatline a long time before. Here is a man who believes the 'jury' is still 'out' on whether we evolved as a species, who regards stem cell research as something profane, who affects the odd belief that Islam is 'a religion of peace'.

That all of that, except for the bit about Islam, is completely irrelevant to the issue is really the strong point of the article, and really the rest of the article doesn't get much better from there.

Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam. As my hand smacks my brow, and as I ask myself not for the first time if Mr Bush suffers from some sort of political death wish, I quickly restate the reasons why he is wrong to join with his most venomous and ignorant critics in making this case.

And from there, Hitchens writes out 13 points on why he's smarter about Iraq than ANYONE ELSE. They're really not worth reprinting here, because none of the 13 are even relevant to the discussion. To be glib, let me list 3 reasons why Hitchens should be laughed out of the room.

1) Saddam is dead. The Baathists are not in power. As such, no matter how brilliant Hitchens history lesson is...it tells us nothing. We are fighting various forces..and any Baathists among them are so small in number as to have virtually no effect on the debate.
2) There were differences between the Soviets and The Communist Chinese as well. That they weren't identical doesn't mean they had no similarities-or that they can't be compared. If for no other reason, Saddam and the North Vietnamese can be compared for the brutal torture of their enemies and the deaths of millions. That's no small similarity and is more relevant to the debate than all 13 of Hitchen's quotes combined. And the wars can be compared if for no other reason than that our enemies are trying to break the American will to fight...not to beat our military. Again, not a small difference.
3) And most importantly...Hitchens 13 points don't matter because none of them even ADDRESSES Bush's point.

That's right, in calling Bush an idiot that he completely dances around the comment Bush made. Bush never claimed that the lead up to the two wars was identical, or that Saddam and the Vietnamese were in cohoots. What was Bush's point again?

Oh yes. I remember:

Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam.

Bush is arguing that leaving Iraq would create another humanitarian crisis, by leaving the citizens open to mass slaughter. Hitchens dismisses this by pointing out (Correctly) that Saddam killed his own citizens before we came. So? How would that mitigate our responsibility for handing over the citizenry to al Quida? And he dismisses the evil that was the North Vietnamese out of hand.

I cannot see how any self-respecting Republican can look at this record without wincing and moaning with shame or how any former friend of the Vietnamese can equate them with either a fascist dictatorship or a nihilistic Islamist death-squad campaign. And now Bush has joined forces with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan in making the two struggles morally equivalent.

How DARE Bush compare a corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture to...well, another corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture? Why, that's something that's makes Hitchens white wash look kinda like the way it happened.

Jim Webb Discusses the Consequences of Vietnam

And shows just why simply leaving a war zone neither serves America's interests abroad, nor "relieves suffering" of the country where the war is...

Webb On Vietnam

In Vietnam, the propaganda machines must work full time to convince an increasingly restless population that the communist war effort was uniquely nationalist and "pure," and that the rigid disciplines that allowed Hanoi to prevail in war still have validity as the future threatens to pass them by.
Here at home, a quiet but intense debate has raged over our involvement, with the forum largely controlled by the media and academia, two of the most staunchly antiwar communities during the conflict (a third being Hollywood). All of these groups have a large stake in having the war remembered as both unnecessary and unwinnable.
Simplistic, cartoonish mythologies accompany both the communist and antiwar versions of the war, no doubt bringing solace to those who were on the right side of its outcome. It is easier to understand why our former enemies persist in such notions than it is to comprehend why so many of our own best and brightest still cling to the illusion that allowing -- or in some cases assisting -- a Stalinist takeover in South Vietnam was an honorable enterprise. The communists paid a heavy price for this victory, and it is natural that they should continue to rejoice in it. What is not natural is that our own commentators, now provided with so much evidence to measure results, should abet the rewriting of history.
In order to justify the war as more of an inevitable reunification of the country than a communist takeover, scant mention is made of other nationalist parties inside Vietnam that the communists systematically eliminated beginning in the first days after World War II. The continuing focus on American and other "atrocities" (My Lai is a national monument) blurs the reality that assassinations were an essential part of the communist insurgency. According to the late Bernard Fall, communist terrorists killed an average of 11 government officials daily during the early 1960s -- the equivalent in this country of an Oklahoma City bombing every day, for years. In a form of deliberate amnesia, commentators rarely mention that such policy-driven assassinations continued throughout the war, with thousands being executed in the city of Hue alone during the brief communist occupation in the 1968 Tet offensive.
...
In order to demean attempts to nurture a democracy in the south even as a war was being fought, the South Vietnamese are continually portrayed as corrupt "puppets" of the U.S. Communist leaders, meanwhile, are elevated to the now-familiar caricature of the selfless noble savage. Communist soldiers -- who fought well but lost repeatedly -- are reverentially referred to as wily guerrilla fighters who continually bested the inept, over equipped forces of the U.S. and South Vietnam. These misrepresentations persist despite Hanoi's admission that more than 1.4 million of its soldiers died in the war, as opposed to 58,000 Americans and 245,000 South Vietnamese.
...
In terms of attitude, the most comprehensive survey of those who fought in Vietnam (Harris, 1980) indicated that 91% of those who served were "glad they served their country," 74% "enjoyed their time in the military," and 89% agreed with the statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win."
The American antiwar movement, whose former members dominate the present administration as well as many of the media and academic filters through which the debate must pass, is benignly portrayed as a reactive force that mobilized only in response to a failed American strategy. In truth, many of its core leaders were dedicated to revolutionary change in America even before the Vietnam War started (the infamous Students for a Democratic Society was created by the Port Huron Statement in 1962). Many of them -- including members of the influential Indochina Peace Campaign -- continued to coordinate directly with Hanoi after the American military pullout in 1973.
...
This vote was a horrendous blow, in both emotional and practical terms, to the country that had trusted American judgment for more than a decade of intense conflict. It was also a clear indication that Washington was abandoning the South Vietnamese even as the North Vietnamese continued to enjoy the support of the Soviet Union, China and other Eastern bloc nations. The vote's impact was hardly lost on North Vietnamese military planners, who began the final offensive only five weeks later, as the South Vietnamese were attempting to adjust their military defenses.
Finally, the aftermath of Saigon's fall is rarely dealt with at all. A gruesome holocaust took place in Cambodia, the likes of which had not been seen since World War II. Two million Vietnamese fled their country -- usually by boat -- with untold thousands losing their lives in the process. This was the first such Diaspora in Vietnam's long and frequently tragic history. Inside Vietnam a million of the South's best young leaders were sent to re-education camps; more than 50,000 perished while imprisoned, and others remained captives for as long as 18 years. An apartheid system was put into place that punished those who had been loyal to the U.S., as well as their families, in matters of education, employment and housing. The Soviet Union made Vietnam a client state until its own demise, pumping billions of dollars into the country and keeping extensive naval and air bases at Cam Ranh Bay.

The irony is that Webb gets Vietnam so right, and correctly argues that we owe our servicemen and women who served (no one wishes to slam their own service after all), he gets Iraq soooo wrong.
The two are damn near identical wars. But Webb wishes to glorify the lost Vietnam war, elevating the valiant serviceman over the incompetant Congress, while at the same time villifying Iraq and the Commander in Chief who wishes to avoid the mistakes of the past. Not only is it odd given Webb's stance on Vietnam, but it becomes downright paradoxical that Webb's son is in Iraq, and he seems to wish the same awful degredation of his son's military service that the anti-war radicals back then gave to his service. And he panders to the modern day anti-war factions while slamming the Vietnam variety.

Basically, if Webb has his way, history will repeat itself under his watch. What makes this so tragic is that he's so damned brilliant on Vietnam and so damned stupid on Iraq.

Like father, like son. In 20 years, we'll have this same article written by his kid, with Iraq replacing Vietnam, and Cindy Sheehan replacing Hanoi Jane.

A Brief Overview of the Recent News in Iraq

Since none of the major news stories wish to present either a detailed and accurate picture of what's going on in Iraq (or even their own coverage), here's a good overview of current stories.

U.S. troop deaths show sharp July decline

BAGHDAD — The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has dropped sharply so far in July after reaching record levels in recent months, a possible sign that militants are weakening, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday.
"This is what we thought would happen once we took control of the safe havens" used by insurgents and militias, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said Thursday. "We've now taken control of those areas."
Though he called the drop in U.S. deaths an "initial positive sign," Odierno cautioned, "I need a bit more time to see if it's a true trend or not."

Great news, no doubt. The soldiers are dying in smaller numbers because they're being allowed to do what they do best: hunt down and slaughter our enemies. Things are looking up in Iraq for the first time in years. We're no longer having progress ADMIDST bombings and death, we're having progress by reducing those bombings and deaths.

Not that you'd know this, judging by headlines like:
More Republicans want limits in Iraq

Same newspaper, yes. But guess which headline is getting more play outside of the pages of USA Today?

WASHINGTON — Republicans increasingly are backing a new approach in the Iraq war that could become the party's mantra come September. It would mean narrowly limited missions for U.S. troops in Iraq but let President Bush decide when troops should leave.
So far, the idea has not attracted the attention of Democratic leaders. They are under substantial pressure by anti-war groups to consider only legislation that orders troops from Iraq.
But the GOP approach quickly is becoming the attractive alternative for Republican lawmakers who want to challenge Bush on the unpopular war without backtracking from their past assertions that it would be disastrous to set deadlines for troop withdrawals.
"This is a necessary adjustment in the national debate to reintroduce bipartisanship, to stop the 'gotcha' politics that are going on that seem to be driven by fringes on both sides and change the terms of the discussion," said Rep. Phil English, R-Pa.

Despite the new strategy going well, cowardly Republicans, terrified of the polls, seek to abandon ship, using the soldiers as life perservers. Like the liberals who demanded that we have a surge for two years, then (one we got it), demanded a change of course...so, too, do we have this now on the left.

This one gets more play because the Republicans are "stabbing their own leadership in the back". Right wingers cannibalizing their own is the media's favorite kinda story. Unfortunately, war by committee is a terrible idea that gets soldiers killed.

The only other story that the media loves more than dead soldiers, or anti- war Republicans...
Report: Troops shot Iraqi many times

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — A soldier charged with premeditated murder in the death of an Iraqi shot the man several times with a rifle before ordering a subordinate to do the same, according to an Army document filed in the case.
Sgt. 1st Class Trey A. Corrales of San Antonio and Spc. Christopher P. Shore of Winder, Ga., are charged with one count of murder in the death, which the U.S. military has said happened June 23 near Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk.
A one-paragraph document, called a "charge sheet" in the military, states that Corrales fired multiple rounds before directing Shore "to then shoot the detainee," according to a report in Sunday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News. It does not state the number of shots the soldiers allegedly fired.

Reporters just love stories of our soldiers doing wrong. Haditha and Guantanimo Bay come to mind. If this was just honesty in reporting (like here, showing the good with the bad) that'd be one thing. But from sources which repeatedly refuse to show the progress our soldiers make, and on the occasions where they HAVE to report on good news (Zarqawi), they down play the hell out of it-it's just an opportunity to make our eeeevvviiiillll soldiers look like the monsters the left always claim them to be.
We should never hesitate to show the good with the bad, because that's how we inform the public about the reality of war. But in cherry picking incidents like and putting it to the constant beat of the death toll, we create quite a dishonest picture indeed.

While a few bad soldiers commit acts like described above (if even true), the majority of our soldiers do good things like this:
U.S. grants help Iraqis launch business dreams

BAGHDAD — Hamid Hussein has a simple goal and a major problem.
Hussein wants work, and after more than a year with no job, he's trying to start his own carpentry shop in Baghdad making home and office furniture.
"I have a family I need to feed," Hussein said.
But what Hussein lacks is the $5,600 he says is necessary to rent a storefront, buy supplies and hire two workers at $200 a month. This week Hussein, 43, joined dozens of Iraqis lining up at the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry to apply for grants that pay up to half of what Iraqis need to start a business.
"This is my golden opportunity," Hussein said. "Nobody before offered such a great favor to jobless people."
Many Iraqis are trying to launch their dreams — and get work and income — when they fill out paperwork for a U.S.-funded small-business grant program administered by the Chamber of Commerce.
Other methods of financing in Iraq are few and far between. Iraqi banks are hesitant to provide credit to small businessmen, in part because of the risk of violence and the constant flow of Iraqis out of the country. That means many Iraqis must turn to family members for loans.
The program aims both to provide jobs and increase security. "We want to rescue Iraqi young men from the mayhem they live in," said Hussein Allawi, the spokesman for the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce.
"Providing jobs to Iraqis would prevent them from joining the insurgency and militias," Allawi said, "because when they get permanent jobs, they will be busy all the time."

Rebuilding an entire nation after it's collapsed into ashes is not an easy task. The fact that our soldiers have done such a spectacular job, it spite of the militias and foreigners, and al Quida trying to hinder the work. Our soldiers are just so committed to making Iraq into an ally and making the lives of the Iraqis better that it's gonig ahead full steam.

Well, we can at least count on USA Today to be fair and accurate, reporting on the good, and bad, progress and failure.
For the most accurate news, CentCom.Mil is the best source out there.

One wonders why we can't get such an accurate picture out of the other outlets...
It's almost like they have a dog in the race:

THE DETENTION OF AP PHOTOGRAPHER BILAL HUSSEIN

Oops, maybe they do...

A Patriotism Foul!

Clinton cries foul!

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that a top Pentagon official did not intend to impugn her patriotism by suggesting her questions about U.S. planning in Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
At the same time, Gates defended his aide and the author of the letter, Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman, calling him "a valued member" who provides "wise counsel and years of experience (that) are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military."

Of course, the staffer never questioned her patriotism. And even if he had, her patriotism, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Anytime a liberal (and sometimes an anti-war conservative) is confronted with the very real fact that al Quida is listening in to our debates, and is hoping that lack of unity will lead to our retreat, they hoop and hollar about their patriotism being called into question. The idea that Bush supporters use patriotism attacks is an invention of the left to reframe the debate away from the actual impact of their ideas. Since we don't live in a vacuum, the actual consequences of our actions must be examined.
It's a shame Gates backed away and apologized for a slight that never occured. If Senator Clinton doesn't wish to have her words scrunitized, or her ideas subjected to a harsh dose of reality, perhaps she should remain silent. Otherwise, she's fair game for ridicule if her ideas are terrible.

The right has a massive problem of backing down whenever some buffoon cries about hurt feelings. "My patriotic nerve got hurt!" Tough, that's life.

The clear cut truth of the matter is this: everyone who pushes for a withdrawl, is pushing for another American loss on the battlefield, to a bunch of cave dwelling savages. If you don't mind this, that's fine, push for withdrawl. But don't cry foul when someone brings up that a loss for us means a win for al Quida. That's simple reality folks.
And if you are arguing that we should turn over control of Iraq (and leave our Iraqi allies) to the very savages who have been raping and murdering the Iraqis for 4 years now...don't get upset when someone questions your humanity.

Bush Speaks the Obvious

In 'surge of facts,' Bush emphasizes Al Qaeda-Iraq link

On Tuesday President George W. Bush delivered what some have called his longest, most detailed argument yet that Al Qaeda in Iraq is linked to the central Al Qaeda organization. Speaking to 300 troops at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina, the president argued that a new unclassified report clearly indicated a connection between the Al Qaeda who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is largely believed to be composed of a strong majority of Iraqi nationals. Politicians, intelligence officials, and regional analysts have met Mr. Bush's recent assertions with much skepticism.
In his address Bush made it clear that he intended to rebut those who accused him of drawing links between the two organizations to create a "distraction from the real war on terror." In his speech, reprinted on the official White House website, Bush accused those who contested his position of having problems "with the facts."
Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida – and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.

For anyone with an IQ above room temperature, this comes as no surprise. The news worthiness of this article comes not from Bush's relatively obvious statements, but from the downright ridiculous hem and haw that came from the left of the aisle:

White House officials have ardently defended Bush's speech, but many Democratic congressmen criticized the president of exaggerating the connection between the two groups, reports The New York Times.
Democratic lawmakers accused Mr. Bush of overstating those ties to provide a basis for continuing the American presence in Iraq. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, said Mr. Bush was "trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading."

This is much akin to trying to tell you that the local boy scout troop in your area is not affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America. Or that the Michigan Republican party has absolutely no connection to the nationwide righties. Or that the Louisiana ACLU has no ties the national ACLU. If you made any of these absolutely stupid remarks...youd be laughed out of the room. That some people are trying to argue that there is no connection between al Quida in Iraq, and al Quida...shows a deeply ingenuous desire to confuse and mislead the American people. And of course, this claim that the two are unrelated is impossible to contain under even a feather's weight of scrutiny, so the opposition seeks to reframe the debate:

"I think what the president is saying is in some sense fundamentally misleading," said Robert Grenier, former head of the counter-terrorism center at the CIA as well as the agency's mission manager for the war in Iraq. "If he means to suggest the invasion of Iraq has not created more jihadists bent on killing Americans, and that if Iraq hadn't been there as a magnet they would have been attracted somewhere else, that's completely disingenuous."
The war "has convinced many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam and is attacking Muslims, and they have become jihadists as a result of their experience in Iraq," Grenier said.

Or

"The Americans have been playing up the role of Al Qaeda in the context of the insurgency.... Al Qaeda is clearly an important segment in the counterinsurgency campaign, but it's not the only one. It may not be the biggest quantitative factor but qualitatively they are important," says Martin Navias, a counterterrorism expert at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London.

But those questions are not the debate. We don't care whether or not some Muslims see this as a war on Islam and have joined al Quida, nor is ANYONE on the President's side claiming that al Quida is the only threat in Iraq. The question is "Are they connected?" And the answer, as even the opposition grudgingly admits is yes, though they try to spin it...

Bush's speech may have misinterpreted the National Intelligence Estimate report upon which he based his argument say a number of intelligence officials and counterterrorism experts. The report described Al Qaeda in Iraq as an "affiliate" of the central Al Qaeda organization currently flourishing in Pakistan, reports The Washington Post. However, the report did not say that the Iraq group took orders from the main Al Qaeda organization. Rather it indicated that Al Qaeda might attempt to utilize the Iraq organization's "contacts and capabilities" for fundraising and recruiting.
That conclusion prompted Democrats and others to say that al-Qaeda is not running the war, but is instead benefiting from it, and thus that the conflict has increased the terrorist threat rather than diminished it.

So, al Quida is directly benefitting from the war, but there's NO CONNECTION! As proof, Democrats say that the Iraq branch doesn't take direct marching orders, which means nothing. The ford plant chief in Missouri doesn't call up the head of Ford every morning to ask what he should do, but it doesn't mean they're not connected. That claim is bordering on the insane. By that logic, I could claim that baseball players who ignore what their managers tell them are not part of the team. Or that quarter backs who call audibles are clearly not affiliated with their coaches.

And furthermore, what does this prove? Terrorist cells are, by their very nature, fractured...so that if one cell is caught they can't tell anything about other groups.

Furthermore, the mythical differences between al Quida in Iraq and al Quida everywhere else don't stand up to even a brief overview:

Before his death, there was clearly connection between Zawahiri and Zarqawi, and even praised him in death.

And our new bundle of joy leader in Iraq ABU HAMZA AL-MUHAJER has clear ties to Zawahiri and the endorcement of Osama himself. So, the two leaders of al Quida in Iraq have clear ties to the world wide group's leader and #2, but again, no connection, move along.

And even the high ranking Iraqi who was caught (and is being touted as proof of AQI's Iraqi membership) seems to have direct ties to Osama.

Bottom line:
If Bush's claims that al Quida in Iraq and al Quida are linked (which, name alone, isn't that much of a stretch), then it is a delusion that Osama bin Ladin, al Zawahiri, al Zarqawi, and virtually every ranking member of the two supposedly unaffiliated groups share.

And if Democratic leaders aren't willing to admit that much, then why in God's name should we listen to anything they say about the war in Iraq period?