An update to my post earlier today…blogger Alec Rawls at Error Theory is claiming that the Flight 93 Memorial is “still an Islamo-fascist shrine”. Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: LGF.

The Radical Left’s Moveon.org is under fire for their latest ad where they used a picture of British troops and claimed they were US soldiers.

James Taranto and company caught the screw-up. This was an email from a friend of Mr. Taranto:

I just got back from my third deployment from Iraq on Friday, and I happened to be at the dentist and saw a completely offensive ad from the idiots at MoveOn.org this morning. Anyway, it is a Bush-bashing ad that pretends to be arguing for American soldiers families as they will miss the holidays and it shows turkey and crying wives and blames Bush for it all. Here is the crucial part of the ad that I would like to bring to your attention. As they pretend to argue on my behalf, they show a group of soldiers standing around a table in the Middle East.

These are not your normal everyday U.S. soldiers though. If you look at the frame they are actually British soldiers. One is in shorts (we don’t have shorts as a normal combat uniform) and the others are all clearly wearing British pattern fatigues. So, my point is that these [turkeys] pretend to argue on my behalf and bash the president in the name of my crying wife, and they don’t even know what an American soldier looks like! Anyway, it really [ticked] me off.

CNS News covered the story today. As of this post, the video is still up on their website.

I may be late to the following Los Angeles Times article concerning U.S. soldiers writing news stories for Iraqi newspapers, but it’s quite humorous what the article is implying. First the excerpt from the LA Times:

As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military “information operations” troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Somehow this must be different than press releases which end up as stories in the LA Times or any other number of newspapers accross the globe, though I can’t quite figure out the difference. And, of course, this is partially what I do for a living so I should be able to point out the obvious differences.

So what are these articles? From the LA Times, we learn they are pieces discussing reconstruction and what good things Coalition forces are doing. How are these any different than the other articles written by whomever that discuss a school opening up or a terrorist attack? The only difference is who wrote it, but that implies a U.S. soldier cannot fathom writing an article with the truth behind it. Yep, that dumb grunt pounding away at a keyboard in Iraq has no clue what’s going on in the nation therefore he couldn’t possibly write a news article on the subject. Or at least that is what the LA Times is implying.

For the sake of argument, let us assume these are not in the form of press releases but they are articles written by U.S. soldiers. Let us also assume these articles advocate one side to the conflict. How is this different than what all media outlets do when they pull stories from wire services to fill a column inch or ten or when any number of newspapers use their same old biases against any number of social causes? Is there a disclaimor next to articles by certain AP journalists who are advocates of socialism and are vehemently anti-war? No, yet we call most of the international press a free press. The LA Times even uses these reports, sans disclaimor of course.

But Justin Gardner writing at The Moderate Voice seems to believe this type of report makes it that much more difficult to stop the comparisons between the Coalition and Saddam Hussein. What comparisons? Oh, those comparisons made by people with a political agenda, sans a disclaimor of course.

I’m not sure what is more humorous to me about this entire story. Is it the fact the LA Times has a double standard or is it that general public’s lack of knowledge on how the media works? They’re both funny to this know-nothing.

via Memorandum

Update:
I forgot to mention the LA Times article states the U.S. military pays these newspapers to include their articles which is somehow different from U.S. newspapers taking advertising revenue for ads and news stories about a product. Open up your local newspaper and find a story on some new car next time you get the chance. That article was provided as an added bonus to advertising, at least it was nine times out of ten. But you see, there’s got to be a difference somewhere. Heh.

Dr. Rusty Shackleford writes an interesting post on using propoganda in during war. Yes, the above could be considered propoganda, but so too could any press release either published straight or one which excerpts are pull from could be considered the same.

The White House has released a 38-page document outlining the strategy for victory in Iraq, available for download here. I have not had the time to read the entire document, but I have pulled a few choice excerpts from it.

There is a great deal regarding who the enemy in Iraq is and what they want. This strategy manual divides the enemy in to three main groups; rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Making the point that these three groups seek different goals but also coordinate attacks, the document makes mention of their methods to intimidate the Iraqi population into submission.

The rest of the document pertains to the strategy in brief on how to accomplish the goals of bringing stability to Iraq, much of which has been mentioned before. Apparently the White House feels the need to release the information in a downloadable PDF file for the information to sink in. In short, the three tracks towards victory are political, economic and security. These of course have been the same three tracks for over two years as well.

Upon hearing the news such a document was to be released, I was concerned it would go too far in depth and give too much to the enemy. It does not and is more or less what has been said over the course of three years written down.

Anyways, because the document is what should have already been known by all ITB readers, I will not rehash it in full. If you choose to read it, and it may be worth the perusal, download the PDF here (right click, save file as).

The full text of President Bush’s speech can be found here, where he goes more in depth than the document.

Democrats charged the speech and document were much of the same, and the document was without question, but one Democratic Senator charged President Bush did not “acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.”

“No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins,” Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush’s speech. “No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We’re talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That’s the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.” (source)

Naturally Senator Kerry didn’t bother telling us what the “fundamental reality of the insurgency is,” and I get the impression he hasn’t bothered to read the document released which does detail who we are fighting in Iraq. Senatory Kerry is also wrong in saying “”No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins.” The words by the retreat group are not to run in the face of terrorists, but it is a comprehensive cut and run advocacy. It just so happens we are fighting against car bombers, suicide bombers and assassins. How Kerry does not differentiate between the two defies logic, but so does much of what he has said over his entire Senatorial career.

Nancy Pelosi, who adovocates an immediate withdrawal, also chimed in saying the speech and document are too much of the same. What though does a moderate Democrat say regarding both?

But Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) called the speech “a step in the right direction” that “begins to address the Senate’s call for a successful exit strategy with measurable benchmarks.” He said, “I look forward to hearing more, including information about the specific benchmarks we expect to achieve, and when we expect to achieve them.” (source)

It is quite striking that the same crowd which charges President Bush is arguing much of the same will lash out against rhetoric implicating they wish to retreat with a white flag, but that’s precisely what they argue when they call for immediate withdrawal. Not seeing the progress that has happened in Iraq is either failing to actually pay attention or politics as usual. I tend to believe the latter.

As we’ve outlined numerous times on this site, there is progress made in Iraq. President Bush touched upon some of that progress in his speech, but he left much of it out. The progress of bringing Democracy to Iraq in less than three years is a remarkable achievement in itself, one which took much longer in other war-torn regions. In fact, Bosnia still doesn’t have a sovereign, Democratic government and there are still insurgent attacks.

Update:

More Kerry hillarity.

Kerry also criticized Bush for using a military audience as a “backdrop” for his speech. “It reminds you of an aircraft carrier and ‘Mission Accomplished,’” Kerry said, noting that while he (Kerry) can’t summon the Naval Academy as a backdrop — he can “summon the truth.”

But Kerry has summoned the help of the Navy to use as a backdrop for his political purposes. Somehow this is different than Senator Kerry using the backdrop of an aircraft carrier to announce his run for the Office of President or his repeated reminders he served this nation during some war, I forget which one.

Hat tip: Blogs for Bush who finds another strange Kerry quote concerning what soldiers in Iraq have reportedly told him. Why is it that every politician who has visited Iraq comes back reaffirming whatever their stance was prior to going over there, yet no one to my knowledge has any sort of an ephiphany?

What Does British MP George Galloway have with David Duke? Sure, Galloway may like white sheets too, but both have spoken in Damascus in support of Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

What is the former Klansman’s take on the war in Iraq? Just like Assad and Galloway, he claims there’s a Jewish conspiracy.

Interviewer: “How do you read the ongoing U.S.-led escalation against Syria within the context of re-mapping the Middle East?”

David Duke: “Well, you must understand that the chief architects of the war were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Daniel Feith, Mr. Wurmser, Elliot Abrams, in the United States. They were the architects of this war. Mr. Pearl, as well as Mr. Wurmser and Feith, wrote a paper called ‘A Clean Break: Securing the Realm,’ a paper for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu. That paper said that the way to Damascus was through Baghdad. I believe that this is part of the ongoing Zionist effort, in their control of American foreign policy, to dominate the entire Middle East, and I believe, dominate the world. I think America is occupied in many ways the way the Golan Heights is occupied, the way the West Bank of Palestine is occupied.”

[...]

Interviewer: “Dr. Duke, what impact has the worsening situation of the occupying forces in Iraq and the daily shipment of body-bags of U.S. and allied soldiers to the U.S.A. and elsewhere, on Bush’s ability to plunge into another quagmire?”

Duke: “This war is a disaster for the United States, and I think that this has to put pause in some of the Zionist neo-cons about going into a new war. But the one wild card is that these neo-cons are crazy. They are insane people. They are Jewish fanatics, extremists, they are not normal people.”

In Duke’s world, chasing around African Americans in sheets is perfectly sane and rational so we should take his comments with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, Duke does make many of the same arguments that opponents of the war have made, including the anti-war’s hero, Cindy Sheehan. Speaking of the “Peace Mother,” Duke was in Crawford this past August with Rev. Al Sharpton and Sheehan to protest against the war. Does this not strike anyone else as very odd that anti-war advocates have embraced David Duke, a man with as checkered a pass as a wicker rug?

Speaking of Sheehan, she has fired back at the photos of her book signging where no one was there except three cameramen.

Great news and a win for the good guys:

PITTSBURGH — Designers of a Flight 93 memorial have made a circular, bowl-shaped piece of land its centerpiece, replacing the original crescent-shape design that some critics had said was a symbol honoring terrorists.

The new design, announced today by the memorial planning committee, features most of the same details of the original, which was unveiled in September after a worldwide design competition.

Paul Murdoch, president of Paul Murdoch Architects, which designed the memorial, had called the criticism of the crescent an “unfortunate diversion,” but said they were sensitive to the concerns.

In the newsletter, he describes the new design as an “evolution” of what was announced two months ago. The changes reflect comments from the public, the competition’s jury and others, he said. “In the months to come, the design will continue to develop as more implementation issues are identified,” Murdoch wrote in the newsletter.

Previous Posts:
Lawmaker blasted as “Islamophobic” for criticizing Memorial design
Flight 93 Memorial resembles a huge red Islamic crescent

Is Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad lead by divine intervention? It’s hardly uncommon for people to believe their chosen deity helps influence their decisions, but Ahmadinejad feels there was a heavenly light shone upon him while he delivered a speech at the United Nations.

According to Ahmadinejad, a member of the United Nations told him of a great light surrounding him to which he later confirmed.

“He said when you began with the words ‘in the name of God,’ I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech],” Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. “I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink.”

Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

“I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it’s not an exaggeration, because I was looking,” he says. “They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic.” (source)

That was not a divine light, that’s how the United Nations is built to shine a light upon the speakers. Stage direction left. Perhaps no one blinked because they couldn’t believe he was granted a visa to enter the United States or they couldn’t believe what he was actually saying?

What’s interesting about this statement is that there are Islamic clerics who have repeatedly attacked Ahmadinejad for his set of beliefs. There is a rumor circulating that he believes he is the 12th Imam, “who according to Muslims has disappeared and will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice,” or that he is preparing for the 12th Imam’s return to civilization. Don’t fear though, the 12th Imam might be hidden in a well near Qom, Iran where Ahmadinejad has denied the rumors he wrote a letter and dropped it down this well to reach him.

Iranian media though won’t report on such activities because of a fear of what Ahmadinejad might do. After all, he was a part of the movement which took Americans hostage and ordered the murder of Iranian dissidents in Europe.

“Inside Iran, no one in a news [organization] takes the risk of publishing incorrect information about the president, who also controls the Information Ministry, [so] spreading lies about him has serious consequences,” Bastani said. “In recent weeks and months, there has been much news similar to the meeting between Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Amoli. These [reports] include the allocation in at least two cases of heavy budgets for the Jamkaran mosque [at the well where some believe that Imam Mahdi is hiding] or comments by the president that have been quoted by the Iranian media in which he had said in an official meeting that the Hidden Imam will appear in two years.”

Ahmadinejad is a strange, strange man who seems to feel his deity wishes to hang all homosexuals, beat women, kill women for being raped, deny today’s version of basic human rights to an entire populace, erase an entire nation off the map, have a law against satellite dishes for public consumption yet launch a satellite of his own, have a strange phobia against cell phones, etc.

What is the correct number of foreign jihadis in Iraq? Frankly, we’ll never know and estimates have been anywhere from a few hundred upwards to 10,000 strong. One thing is certain though, due to recent changes in the defense of Iraq there are far fewer foreign jihadis entering Iraq to prey on a vulnerable populace.

“We are killing them,” a senior Pentagon official said yesterday, when asked about shrinking foreign-fighter numbers in Iraq.

[snip]

“It appears there has been a downturn, and that is partly due to increased security along the border with Syria,” said a U.S. counterintelligence official, who asked not to be named. “Syria was the primary entry point for most of those foreign fighters. Stepped-up efforts to stem the flow is having an impact.”

But a smaller pool of suicide bombers has forced the foreign fighters’ main leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, to recruit iraqis, and some are enlisting, the counterterrorism official said. (source)

What effect might this have in Iraq? One effect is a tigher security and hopefully less offensives in certain areas of Iraq, namely Ramadi and Western Iraq.

While the Pentagon will not give death count numbers, it has always been the case that many of these jihadis die when they actually stand and fight. Of course that is not the prefered method of launching terrorist attacks.

In a recent briefing, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said coalition troops have killed more than 100 members of al Qaeda in Iraq in recent months.

Zarqawi “still has capabilities, including recruiting suicide bombers,” Gen. Lynch said. “The forces will continue their operations and fight their way to the elections to deny him these capabilities.”

Lt. Gen. John Vines, the U.S. tactical commander in Iraq, declined to provide a “body count,” but said a series of counterinsurgency sweeps are taking a toll on the enemy.

“What we do see indicators of are the numbers of foreign fighters that are showing up in a variety of venues, and we believe those numbers are significantly less, perhaps is less than half as many as they were in the summer,” Gen. Vines said. “We see evidence that we’re making considerable progress in that regard.”

A U.S. intelligence official said, “A lot of these people should not be called foreign fighters. They should be called ‘foreign ordnances’ because they blow themselves up. They don’t fight.”

This is yet another sign of progress in Iraq. Iraqi soldiers are in great enough numbers to virtually close off the border between Iraq and Syria, the same border which Al Qaida in Iraq openly calls on prospective jihadis to cross to enter the fray.

Take his comments for what they are worth, which is this point isn’t much as we’ve discussed on this site numerous times. It does however present something which is very interesting, and that is how Reid apparently feels certain things should happen behind closed doors and others are fine to air out in public.

Is Senator Harry Reid all that swift when it comes to U.S. Intelligence matters? Last Wednesday, the Minority Leader appeared on KRNV-TV’s “Nevada Newsmakers” program and dropped a stunning revelation. He had been informed just that day that Osama bin Laden was killed in the giant Pakistan earthquake last month. “I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that’s the case, I certainly wouldn’t wish anyone harm, but if that’s the case, that’s good for the world.”

Intelligence analysts tell me that the only proper action by a top U.S. Senate leader who has been given such information is radio silence. If the report is true, such information is best released at a moment of the U.S. government’s choosing. For one thing, as long as the information is tightly held, it can be used to sift out electronic intercepts that might lead to other Al Qaeda leaders. On the other hand, if Mr. Reid’s public speculation proves groundless, it only embarrasses the U.S. and contributes to enemy morale. Here’s hoping Al Qaeda figures aren’t soon appearing on Al Jazeera television chortling about the clueless Mr. Reid.

Earlier this month, Mr. Reid was eager to keep discussions of intelligence matters under wraps. For little apparent reason, he invoked a seldom-used rule that forced the Senate to go into secret session to debate complaints about pre-war intelligence concerning Saddam’s weapons programs. … (source)

Well, that’s because there’s politics involved in Iraq, though there should never be politics involved in a war. We’ve discussed the rumors involving Osama Bin Laden and the Pakistani earthquake a few times on this site and I must say until there is an Al Qaida confirmation of his death, I won’t believe it.

To Senator Reid, how could Osama Bin Laden have died in the Pakistan earthquake when he died of natural causes in Kandahar, Afghanistan? Oh wait, that’s just a rumor too. Then again, it didn’t stop Senator Reid from furthering the earthquake rumor.

Watch the video of Reid’s comments here.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Marc Schulman’s second entry in his series analyzing the New York Times and their coverage of the war in Iraq is up. Much like the first, this is a must-read because it gives a great impression of how the New York Times has changed over the course of a decade.

The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005 (Part II)