Tuesday, July 31, 2007
|
|
Introducing the Nancy Boyda Award!
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
3:35 PM
|
Yesterday I wrote about Congresswoman Nancy Boyda who found three-star General John Keane’s (ret.) positive report about Iraq so upsetting that she had to leave the briefing room in a huff. While we don’t know exactly what the General said that so riled the obviously easily riled representative, Keane did give an interview to National Review’s Rich Lowry which gives us some insight into that burning question. Here’s some of what Keane told Lowry, but by all means read the whole thing:
The success that the security operation is achieving is, in my judgment, very definable. What I have done is, in my first visit in February since the operation began, I went into neighborhoods in Baghdad and then returned 90 days later to make a comparison. And I will do the same in August…
What you see is a stark contrast to ‘06 in those neighborhoods. Because all the schools are open. The markets are teaming with people. Some operating at full capacity; some not quite there because of the level of violence in their neighborhood and some of the construction that was being done, but nonetheless a steady improvement. Government services are being administrated in the neighborhoods and again some of that is uneven because of the nature of the government of itself, but nonetheless there is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in ‘06 there were none…
I think Baghdad (in a year or two) will be stable except for an occasional car bomb by the al Qaeda. Anbar province will be stable. Diyala province will be stable and many of the provinces around Baghdad will be almost as stable. And I see us, from a security perspective, having made some very significant gains, particularly in comparison from ‘06 and from a political perspective, I absolutely see the change that is taking place from the grassroots level in the Sunni and Shia wanting change.
Once again, read the whole thing. The General doesn’t back away from addressing the unsatisfactory political situation in Baghdad, and is no Pollyanna. But overall, the picture is a lot more encouraging than it was a year ago or even a few months ago. This perhaps explains why the New York Times found the American public more encouraged about the situation in Iraq, much to the Grey Lady’s shock and horror.
No wonder why Nancy Boyda left the room in a hurry when General Keane gave his briefing. Wouldn’t want to take any chance of getting confused by the facts.
OF COURSE, THE COUNTRY IS full of Nancy Boydas – people who refuse to hear good news from Iraq. They believe that the war is lost and that the sooner America and especially the Bush administration admit its humiliation at the hands of Al Qaeda and abandon millions of Iraqis to genocidal massacres, the better. It is in Nancy Boyda’s honor that I now introduce the Nancy Boyda Award, which I will present to people who ostentatiously deny whatever good news might come out of Iraq.
Some Nancy Boyda Award winners will twist good news into bad news. For instance, the surge became fully operational a little less than a couple of months ago. In May, we suffered 125 casualties. In June, that number ticked down to 101. With July almost over, the number currently stands at 74. Each casualty is a loss to be mourned; still, the fact that the casualty figure has declined by roughly 20% per month while our troops have been most active and engaged is clearly an encouraging sign. What’s more, given the activity level of the current American mission, the number of U.S. casualties should be a lagging indicator of the situation in Iraq. Logically, our casualties should decrease only when more bad-guys are dead and their activity already diminished. In other words, these numbers should represent improvement across the board in Iraq, which is exactly what General Keane reported and those two crazy-brave Brookings fellows wrote about in yesterday’s New York Times.
So, you might wonder, how does a hard left website like the Daily Kos deal with an appalling development such as fewer U.S. military men dying in Iraq while achieving greater results? Long time Kos front pager “Meteor Blades” answered that question by making the following observation under the heading ”Iraq by the Numbers”:
Try a different perspective regarding that "drop." Compare the Coalition’s fatalities for all the Julys that the U.S. has occupied Iraq via the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Website:
July 2007: 77 July 2006: 46 July 2005: 58 July 2004: 58 July 2003: 49
In honor of this tendentious piece of drivel “Meteor Blades” wins our first Nancy Boyda Award! Congratulations, Meteor Blades, wherever you are.
ODDLY ENOUGH, ANDREW SULLIVAN provides the perfect coda to our debut of the Nancy Boyda Award. Earlier today, Andrew was slightly miffled that I suggested that “the left and other anti-war figures like Andrew Sullivan have a lot invested in this war failing and failing miserably.” Andrew took delight when someone took my logic and inverted it, writing, “The right and other pro-war figures like Dean Barnett have a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew commented with a portentous and approving “Hmmmmm.”
Probably unwittingly, Andrew has confirmed my theory that this war’s opponents have forgotten something basic and elemental: Every American, regardless of his party affiliation or political philosophy, has “a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew Sullivan used to know that. Best to ask him why he’s forgotten it.
And ask Representative Nancy Boyda also, while you’re at it.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
|
What channel do you think they are watching in the hills of Pakistan? Afghanistan? In the deserts of Iraq? You say that when we kill 2,000 terrorists, "our actions" create 5,000 more. Either that is bad strategy independent of the media (it is, you say, our "actions," not our news), or you mean to imply that it is the way we COVER the killing -- which returns me to my initial question. Do you think there are liberal, democratic, young Muslims who say, "good for the Americans, killing those 2,000 men" who then turn on CNN and suddenly yell, "what!?! THAT is how it is? I never realized, but find me a bomb-vest, stat!" |
|
Look dude, I'm not a Vietnam vet, but I do have a degree in history (and no, I don't work at Starbucks). Wars are tests of a nation's will. In the old days, in fact throughout history, killing civilians has been an extremely effective strategy in breaking the will of your enemy. Laying waste to the general population has ALWAYS been the rule, NEVER the exception. The United States military changed this paradigm during the latter part of the Vietnam "conflict". We began developing "smart bombs" to minimze civilian casualties, and the Left ridiculed us. We began fighting wars that placed our warrior sons and daughters at greater risk because we valued the human lives of non-combatants- even enemy sympathizers. Our military NEVER loses an engagement. Unfortunately, in the modern world, perception trumps reality. With a Lefty dominated media, our wins become losses. If we seize ground and hold it, we're trapped in a quagmire. If we kill 2,000 Al Qaeda, our actions cause 5,000 new Islamofascists to sign up for jihad. But I digress: The Tet Offensive was a huge military defeat for the VC- they even teach this fact to my 8th grader. Here's a little quip: "It (the Tet Offensive) is widely seen as a turning point in the war, but although it was a military defeat for the Communists, media reports were misleading in America, where televised war footage showed the Americans retreating through the grounds of the US embassy in Saigon making for a profound psychological impact on the US public."
The key phrases: military defeat for the communists, media reports were misleading...profound psychological impact on the US public. Iraq IS another Vietnam, but only because the Democrats and their partners in crime want to relive their glory days by misleading the public. Shame on the Democrats, shame on the Western media.
|
|
|
Congresswoman Nancy Boyda's favorite recreation is golf. A Public coarse, of course. |
|
|
I'm ashamed to say that Boyda's my congresswoman - although I'm proud to say I voted for the other guy. |
|
|
How about starting the 'Andrew Sullivan' award for inconsistincy in the face of adversity? |
|
Hmmm, where have we heard this cop-out loser talk before? I know - from the losers of Vietnam. When the military fails - blame the opposition party - blame the media - blame your fellow Americans - blame everyone and anyone but your leadership and your strategy...
Not much of a student of history, Big Dogg? The NVC was beaten militarily after the Tet Offensive. According to their own accounts, they were ready to pack it in. They hung on because of folks like John Kerry doing their PR work in the States. Did you forget they have a section of their war museum in Saigon dedicated to the hard work of John Kerry and the Winter Soldier movement? Vietnam was lost because of people like you. Iraq WON'T be lost because of people like Gen. Patreus in the field, and guys like Dean Barnett on the home front. When Big Dogg runs in the tall grass, he pees himself. |
|
Let me pose this question to any trolls out there: do you think we'd still be at war in Iraq without your support and investment in America's defeat? This war continues because Al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents expect their "fifth column" Defeatocrat allies to do their work on our homefront. American and Coalition forces have died by the thousands because of the Left's continued support for our defeat.
Without the meddling of folks like Jack Murtha, Harry Reid, and now, Nancy Boyda, the Islamofascists would have read the handwriting on the mosque wall and abandoned the killing fields of Iraq long ago. Instead, they read the New York Times and Washington Post for words of encouragement and tips on how to beat our surveillance techniques. Look in the mirror and recognize what you are Democrats: sniveling, treasonous traitors full of self-loathing, blinded by the lukewarm vomit of moral equivalence. |
|
She's a friggen dumb "bee-atch".
The nation started its downward spiral with the 19th amendment. She is nothing more than a prodcut of estrogen in action.
We deserve the government we get. |
|
anyone jumping up and down claiming that "all was going swimmingly" during the past four years.
But, the problem was, no libidiot was willing to admit that some things just might be going better than the libidiots would like!!!!!!!!
How about Reprobate Reid claiming that Patraeus was lying even before Patraeus was out of DC, and maybe even before he was out of the Capitol Bldg. Now that was a class act... 3rd class!
(And, of course, anyone with two brain cells working simultaneously would have to question just exactly how Reid would KNOW that! That fool Reid hasn't been in Iraq, but rather sitting in DC in his air conditioned office and limos, making land deals!)
And then there is the issue of Hewitt's interview with John Burns... Of course, we're not seeing Matthews or Olbermoron interviewing Burns. Wonder why? Oh yeah, Burns, a vetern NYTimes reporter, is thinking that things are better than the libidiots are claiming (and let's not forget that Burns is IN IRAQ!) But it doesn't matter if Burns isn't touting the loser-libidiot" mantra.
No doubt there is going to be some stiff competition for the Nancy Boyda Award.... like the entire libidiot dumbo party!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Your textual criticism is odd. I don't think you see the song as Lennon did. No religion is not a call to hedonism -- it is actually a call for real responsibility -- rather than surrendering your will to a king, higher power, invisible authority, whatever, you should do what you do because the power of your own reason concludes it should be done. It is, in fact, not unlike the philosophy of, say, Kant. No country= no responsibility? How? Are you good to your neighbors because they are Americans or because they are people? The question is -- why do we identify or not with people -- we identify too often for nonsense reasons -- same nationality, same race, same religion -- when, again, someone like Kant would argue that we ought to respect ALL people because ALL people are ends, not means. Hence, nationality is a distraction from our commonality. And, of course, property -- again -- not because we should all just take anything (that would be property). Consider that Rousseau wrote that the first person who declared his possession of land to be the originator of division -- the real fall of man (or, as Proudhon wrote, "property is theft"). From whom, in nature, should we "ask permission" for our sustinence? From whom, outside of the artificial strictures of society, should we "ask permission" to feed our families, clothe ourselves etc.? Is it just that Paris Hilton -- simply based on birth -- is allowed to have as much as she has, while most of the people in the world -- simply based on birth -- have nothing? You can call it naive, but it is, in fact, at the heart of most of Western philosophy and theology. |
|
Unfortunately, the Iraqis can't "live with that." It's tragic that ersatz "liberals" have become so illiberal as to promote a policy of probable genocide.
However, I continue to be impressed with your generous use of exclamation points, the caps lock key and rhyming derogatory names. You do your junior high proud, my friend. Kudos. |
|
|
I just visited you base of operations, http://www.famousidiot.com. You are the fifth biggest user there and you "karma points" are by far the most negative. In fact, you seem to specialize in nothing but vulgar and negative comments. Are you an insane person? There are plenty of office buildings outside for you to yell at, you know. Maybe the CIA is spying on you. Ever think of that? It's da gubment!!! |
|
|
You are obviously not paying attention to the world around you. I strongly recommend you start with reading Mark Styne's "America Alone". The world wasn't falling apart under Hitler either... until it fell apart. Make an argument. No one here cares whether you approve or disapprove of someone else's opinion. We aren't here to vote but to discuss. |
|
|
I still can't believe Nancy Boyda won on a slick campaign slogan alone. This woman hasn't a clue this world is not a sweet and wonderful place without enemies. Wait, Bill said that too didn't he. The bloody Kansas Missouri border war became the Civil War. Democrat's who wished slavery upon us knew victory before they were finnaly vanquished. Again we must throw off the shackles of slaver's. Money from "Move on" and "The Killer Tiller" were instrumental in Boyda's success of 2006. I think Kansan's will not be fooled again. |
|
Because since the war began, the Award Winners have been essentially right, and the cheerleaders have been consistently, painfully, miserably wrong.
It'll continue, no matter what insult - be it "defeatist," or "traitor," and now, hysterically, "genocidal," you throw at the majority who wants us out of Iraq.
DU |
|
Only on mention of Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn saying progress in Iraq would be "bad for us"?
For us? Really? Who is us, Jim - you and ?
Maybe he's just taking news of success with a piece of salt, maybe I am being too hard on an American "statesman" hoping for American defeat, to a world audience.
I am waiting with great anticipation to hear how Nancy and Harry spin that to sound like anything more than hoping for the death and failure that would keep them in power.
Blood for oil make you mad, what about blood for votes? Any problem with that?
|
|
|
with howsa bout a "David Petraus Award" for those who refuse to shirk their duty no matter how bilious their opposition gets. |
|
|
are obliged to tell us what SHOULD have been done and those likely consequences. Like Kerry, other Dems and Lefties are mute except to parrot the administration's plan... only "better" or to retire to "Give Peace A Chance" bromides. Thing is, we GAVE peace a chance. That is what the armistice that ended Desert Storm, leaving Saddam on his golden toilet, WAS, a victory by an alliance of "pacifists", realpolitik types (James Baker, I'm lookin' at you!) and other species of ostriches that wanted us to half-win THAT war. At the time it was apparent to anyone that we would just have to do it again. So it is with the current war. Retreat and defeat? Well, you may yet be able to mau-mau Bro W into such a foolish action but most likely you will have to wait for a softer target, but in any case, the reform of the Middle East/Islam is just not optional. To do nothing is to pave the way for the political ends our Islamist foes envision. We will bring them into the modern age or they will bring us to the medievel age, it is as simple as that. I know what side I occupy. If you don't, you best start measuring your female relatives for burqas and modifying your drinking habits. |
|
|
...will occur more at the end of the war than at the beginning. The left's flummoxed reaction to success in spite of their best efforts to assure defeat could be the most surprising outcome. Unfortunately for the left, they have so very little shame. |
|
|
|
"This perhaps explains why the New York Times found the American public more encouraged about the situation in Iraq, much to the Grey Lady’s shock and horror."
You got a source on that - the shock and horror? Didn't think so - another war mongering lie...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ While perusing HughHewitt.com, try using the scroll button on your mouse. It's that funny looking little wheel between the buttons. If you do, you may find a link to the NY Times about the poll you've so politely inquired about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29elder.html?ei=5090&en=b4bf259b63ec98e6&ex=1343361600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185809690-bfGMeohUzNq88SnO4yCKRw
From the link:
"Forty-two percent of those polled said the United States did the right thing, and 54 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. The last time the question was asked, in May, 35 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.
The July numbers represented a change. It was counterintuitive. " |
|
I nominate James Clyburn(D-SC) as a proxy for the entire Democrat party for his statement that a positive report from General Petraeus 'would be a real problem for us'. It is hard to conceive of an American who thought that an American success would be a problem. And in case anyone is wondering I am definitely questioning his patriotism. |
|
found in the song "Imagine"... No religion (no such thing as sin so be a hedonist), no country (no responsibilities towards others, so indulge yourself), no possessions (no asking permission, just take what you want)...
But it doesn't work that way in the real world... There are Taliban, there are thugs, there are people who hate... And they don't all share that sophomoric utopian fantasy... Some, in fact, like Ted Bundy and so many others made famous on Court TV, get a sexual thrill from murdering innocents...
magine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one
|
|
|
There is alot that can be read into John Burns' statement. War is an uncertain enterprise. In this case, we either accept the point of view that we are in a desperate fight for civilization, which I do, or we take the Dem and round-heeled Republican point of view that this is merely an inconvenient and unnecessary war or worse. When there is much at risk, including possibly survival, why is there any debate as to whether we should fight? Even against all odds, we have a duty to fight for our survival. We may rue the dau we allowed our politicians to Intellectualize this war for partisan politics when we surrender our civil rights as a trade-off for feeling safe. We aren't very far from that now. Just keep an eye on what goes on in Congress. If we made up our mind that we have to win in Iraq or anywhere else, no one coul defeat us. THAT is the problem. Many of those who claim to support the war have a very narrow view of what they support. I support outright victory by waging unlimited horror on our horrible enemies if that is what it takes. Body counts do count and the sooner we lose our squeamishness, they faster we will see results. That is war is about. You don't go knocking door to door in a war. |
|
.. Any American is invested in defeat for the US, would leave the battlefield in retreat, should be foreign to every American, but the hard left loonies. The enemy killed thousands of our citizens in an unprovoked attack, and vows to kill millions more.
You do not vote to go to war and then say to our troops what John F'n Kerry said about Vietnam's warriors. It is akin to the lowest of the low, which is obviously the depths to which the left has gone. Hello Hillary.
The left will be discarded like yesterday's bad dream shortly. The novelty of tax and spend socialism is short. |
|
|
say stuff like this, commenting on folks' looks, but this lady looks like Craig Jackson (Barrett Jackson Collector Car Auction)in drag. Or, semi drag since she doesn't exactly look feminine here. |
|
Little Iraqi political progress
Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, served as a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 points out that “both Shiite and Sunni view one another as deviants from the pure form of Islam as taught by Muhammad, and as such functioning as apostates deserving death”.
That is why I wrote years ago, which is supported by the NIE report, that we must recognize each group and stop forcing a strong federal government for any hope of containment. If not we will deal with another strong man after massive blood shed or we will see a regional civil war.
Do you not think it is odd that NEOCONS think they are conservative and they always support a strong federal government like liberals?
USAToday- Adm. Michael Mullen, President Bush’s choice to replace Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday the Iraqi government has made little progress toward political reconciliation and that a “strategic reassessment” of U.S. policy in Iraq would be required if that has not changed by mid-September.
While Mullen said there had been some improvement in security following the recent buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, “there does not appear to be much political progress.”
“Failure to achieve tangible progress toward reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment,” Mullen said in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing to become Bush’s top military adviser.
“If we aren’t making progress in that realm, the prospects for movement in a positive direction are not very good,” he said. “But waiting until then, I think, is important.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/little-iraqi-political-progress
|
|
|
The only good thing about DU is that I only lasted three hours there, before I got banned. At least they know how to get rid of exasperating--conservative ones in their case--"trolls." Not true here at Trollhall.com |
|
Sure that retort sounds bad -- perhaps it should be rephrased slightly -- the right has everything riding on making sure the perception is a success -- regardless of whether or not it objectively is. Hence, the declining idealism of the objectives (secure stability or some other mealy-mouth construction) and the increasing focus on just how-many-do-we-kill. No longer do we spend much time talking on the government -- what government there is -- something a surge hasn't and can't really advance. If the goal is now stability and security, we appear to have returned to the 80s -- when we would be content with a strong man a la Saddam Hussein. That, to me, is a concession that this was a mistake. And -- before people jump on me -- I don't like the idea of a strongman, but I like it more than a strongman who comes along after all the carnage we've be a part of. |
|
|
Is there a comparable "Hugh Hewitt award", for people who have insisted for the last 4 years that everythig is great, that it is all going to plan, that the Mission has been accoplished, that freedom is on the march, etc., etc.? |
|
|
Bush and the Bushies (I r 1) have much invested in victory. This is perpetually an observation meant to undermine any claims to Iraq progress as mere special pleading not to be considered. And of course there is a grain of substance there, but never is it admitted (although Dem strategists are lately forced to do so for tactical reasons) that this cuts both ways. Our Lefties have based their very claims to decency on the "fact", not that this war is not won, but that any war is unwinnable. While rhetorically and logically this represents a balanced scale, pragmatically, practically and politically it means the antis are on the side with the Islamists and the pros, with the hellish Chimpy, on the side of not America merely, but the West as a cultural artifact. They are with the head choppers and burqua-fiers. Some don't know it; most won't admit it but there are two sides here. Everyone must chose one. Fence-sitting is a luxury and quite obsolete. |
|
|
|