The US presence in Iraq is still a hot issue. It is seen by many as a
mistake, that's been going on too long. How natural for the idiotic liberal media to take this stance. Naturally they ignore all the good done, and that now the tide is beginning to turn in Iraq and there is much success.
Here are the latest words from
Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North on the subject...
* * * * *
“We’re in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against Al
Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter. It’s a battle that’s got to be fought in military, diplomatic, intelligence, security, policing and ideological terms.”
That’s pretty strong stuff — and since those remarks were made this week at Camp David, one might think they were uttered by
President Bush. However, they were spoken by Britain’s new prime minister,
Gordon Brown, who the international media believe has reservations about the war in Iraq. “He gets it,”
President Bush said of the Prime Minister’s stance on terrorism. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the masters of the media.
For nearly two years, the press have been slavishly following liberal dogma and telling us that the war in Iraq is all but lost; that the region will never embrace democracy and that young Americans serving there are dying needlessly. Even before the “troop surge”, they were telling us that it
wouldn’t work. And since the final contingent of additional troops arrived in theater most tried to convince us that it has failed. Some of them may even believe it, but that
doesn’t make it true.
From my experience in eight trips to Iraq for FOX News since March 2003, reality in Iraq is rarely found on the front pages of our newspapers or in the lead stories in most broadcast news. There are but two principal reasons for the paucity of reality in what we’re seeing in print and on the air:
First, there is enormous antipathy in U.S. and European press rooms toward
George W. Bush and his administration. It’s been that way since his first term and it
isn’t going to go away. This predisposition — and the media’s congenital animus toward the American military — colors reporting on everything the president does or says to include the war coverage. Opposition politicians have taken advantage of this bias and its effect on the polls to reap political advantage. They saw the efficacy of this stratagem in the last two congressional elections and they intend to pursue it to capture the White House regardless of the damage done to our national security.
Second, despite the importance of the war to the American people, there are relatively few western — particularly American — journalists outside Baghdad’s “Green Zone.” Much of what we see on television is videotape bought from Arab cameramen, many of whom spend most of their time with their favorite Al
Qaeda terror cell or
Shia militia unit. My media “colleagues” then cut this tape — usually the aftermath of a heinous terror act — stand on the balcony of an air conditioned hotel room and tell us the “latest news” from the war. Lead stories rarely mention the courage and perseverance of American troops or their Iraqi counterparts, how many new schools, hospitals and police stations have been opened, or the clean water and sanitation that’s now available to the people of Mesopotamia.
Both of these factors have significantly altered Americans’ perceptions of what’s happening on the ground in Iraq. But that
doesn’t change the fact that the “surge strategy” is working. The goals — announced by
General Petraeus before he departed for Iraq, are being achieved: Add sufficient U.S. troops to give the Iraqi police and security forces time to recruit, train, arm and deploy; Seize and hold Al
Qaeda and militia strongholds — and assure the people in those areas that the security forces are there to stay and prevent both acts of terror and sectarian violence;
Begin the process of political reform so that the people of Iraq have an equitable distribution of the nation’s oil wealth and rule of law so that disputes can be resolved without resorting to bullets and
IEDs.
Last December — even before the additional troops arrived in Iraq — I reported how the “awakening” in violent Al
Anbar Province had created conditions where, for the first time, Sunni police,
Shia soldiers and American troops were working together against Al
Qaeda.
Now, even The New York Times has had to acknowledge that the surge strategy is working by running an op-ed this week in which it was noted how strategic Al
Anbar is now a model for the rest of the country, that “many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the [Iraqi Army] have been removed,” and that the delivery of basic services, such as electricity and clean water, are underway. They point to challenges ahead — but it’s a step in the right direction.
* * * * *
Thank you
Colonel North, now it's time the rest of the world discovered the truth: The campaign in Iraq is a success and Bush should be praised.
Source: Fox News
This movie's idea is simple: After notorious Arizona outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is captured, it's up to a handful of locals, including down on his luck rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and bounty hunter Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda), to bring him to justice. Their mission is to transport Wade to the town of Contention where he will be put on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. While this journey entails a trip through dangerous Apache territory, the greatest threat to the posse comes from the prisoner himself and his murderous henchmen.
While a major part of this movie, the action isn't all this is about. There's a deep performance from both leads, Bale and Crowe who at first appear stereotypical good-guy and bad-guy roles but reveal much complex sides to their characters as the movie moves on. In fact by the climax of the film you're left wondering whose side you're rooting for but Cop Land director James Mangold, understands the story’s moral code and it clearly shows. It also lends much to the exceptional supporting cast.
