"Al Qaeda in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands"

Christopher Hitchens:

If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about "the hunt for the real enemy" or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.

This is not the least of what he says. Note his three points with regard to those who argue Iraq as a "war of choice," versus Afghanistan as a "war of necessity."

The Fewest Deaths Since The Start Of The War

U.S. military deaths plunged in May to the lowest monthly level in more than four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too, as Iraqi forces assumed the lead in offensives in three cities and a truce with Shiite extremists took hold.

And the AP headline?: Deaths in Iraq plunge, but will it last?

I think it will. Military and civilian deaths, along with attacks, are at record lows. I see a trend. Even the Washington Post jumps in.

Maybe the war isn't lost after all.

"On the margins of their consciousness"

Wretchard of The Belmont Club writes:

I suspect that in the minds of many, the question will be begged. A large percentage of public policy debates are determined not by winning intellectual arguments but by forming attitudes. A friend of mine wrote in a private email that many people in his San Francisco office don't even think about the War on Terror or the fact that America hasn't been attacked by 9/11. All that is a hum on a distant planet; something on the margins of their consciousness. Arguments invoking the numbers of Iraqi Government divisions, the Anbar Awakening, etc might as well be a recitation of track lengths in a obscure railroad. A certain percentage of people have made their minds up. 'America has lost. The TV says so. And besides, so what?'

A Biased Juxtaposition

What do the 9/11 attacks and US military funerals have to do with one another?

Little Green Footballs asks the same question of the Associated Press.

The "spillover effect from what happened in Iraq"

According to Mark Steyn on The Hugh Hewitt Show:

"I think in the months before the invasion of Iraq, the Middle East is a tough nut to crack. But if you're going to find the point at which to try and crack it, Iraq was the one that made sense. And we saw certainly in the early days, the impact it had destroying the Baathist regime, in, for example, Jordan, where at one point, the Baathists were a minor electoral player in Jordanian politics. And in fact, even in a moderate Arab nation like Jordan, the spillover effect from what happened in Iraq, and from the possibilities in Iraq, actually improved the quality of Jordanian democracy. You know, the fact is that a superpower is not a superpower if it cannot influence events in the world. The Middle East exported its pathologies across the planet. That's really what happened on September 11th. And so the only way you can reverse that is by fixing the problem at source, which was the point of going somewhere like Iraq. "

And we should also recall Libya's agreement to dismantle all its WMD's just months after the US swept through Iraq in 2003.

Facts from Iraq the media fails to publish

As redundant as it may seem to state the obvious failure of the media with respect to depicting the full picture in Iraq, the following list (which I received in an email forward) is still an eye-opener:

-Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq ?
-Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
-Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction;and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq ?
-Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4research centers, all currently operating?
-Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
-Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
-Did you know that Iraq ' s Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft(under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
-Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
-Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
-Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over3500 new officers every 8 weeks?
-Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
-Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
-Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
-Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
-Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
-Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
-Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/

Ironically, far left anti-war blogs like DailyKos continue to take the position that the media operates as "a wide-open spigot for the propaganda of the Bush-Cheney administration." In reality, the significant reduction in violence has simply dampened the media's appetite for more in depth coverage. In reality, terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda in Iraq, have found their area of operations significantly reduced. This is a product of the surge. Unfortunately, that has not lead news agencies to instead focus on progress, as listed above.

Daily Show: Marines in Berkeley

"If only there was an organization sworn to defend that free speech."

Ha.

Courtesy Neal Boortz.

In Case There Was Any Doubt

...that some Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, were complicit in the
smearing of General Petraeus, the Daily Kos Thanks Hillary for Calling Petraeus a Liar.

If that still isn't enough proof, Senator Clinton also voted against the Senate bill condemning the MoveOn.org ad which accused General Petraeus of betrayal. This should come as no surprise, considering the accusations the Senator made to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during the hearings:

"I want to thank both of you, General Petreaus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult... Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts both in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us, really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

To score political points, and to fire up her base, Senator Clinton and other leading Demcorats took shots at the General.

That is shameful pandering.

Liberal Bloggers Defend Ahmadinejad Visit To Ground Zero

The "progressive" CarpetBagger Report second guesses the decision to bar Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero:

I appreciate the fact that blogging does not lend itself to mixed emotions, which I admit to feeling in a case like this. My first instinct was to reflexively oppose Ahmadinejad’s request. The man is a dangerous nut, and it’s hardly a stretch to assume that he wants to appear at Ground Zero to improve his own image on the international stage. Given the hostilities between his country and ours, there’s no reason for the U.S. to accommodate his public-relations campaign. If Ahmadinejad wants to appear more responsible as an international leader, there are several constructive steps he can take in his own country.

But the more I think about it, the more I second guess this reaction.

CarpetBagger goes on to quote other liberals with conciliatory attitudes. The liberal Booman Tribune writes:

[H]ere this man comes, to make an ostensibly good-faith gesture and to pay respects to our dead. Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy so he can better understand why his country is under such a threat.

Is it really a ‘good faith’ gesture? Maybe not. Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.

The ignorant credulity is astounding. "Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy?" The same man who directs his Revolutionary Guard to actively kill Americans in Iraq? CarpetBagger also quotes another blogger by the name of Anonymous Liberal:

Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let’s get a grip. It’s not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They’re not allies. Never have been. They don’t even have similar goals or aims.

Moreover, don’t we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn’t that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn’t it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.

But this is all too complicated for today’s Republican Party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an “Islamofascist” and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.

CarpetBaggers sums it up by saying:

If security and safety concerns make the visit impossible, all of this is a moot point. But as a matter of principle, it’s worth considering what the U.S. reaction should be if, say, there were no logistical concerns. After all, Ahmadinejad is a foe, but that hasn’t stopped the Bush administration from sitting down the Iranians to discuss Iraq policy. Doesn’t that mean we have some kind of diplomatic relationship with Tehran?

No, the leader of the largest state sponsor of Islmic terror should not be allowed to visit Ground Zero. This would be an offense to every casualty of 9/11, to their families, and to every ordinary American citizen that was attacked that day.

It is appalling that all the while acknowledging Ahmadinejad probably has ulterior motives, and likely using the trip as a "stunt," it's worth dirtying the memory of our dead for something that may be "a 'good faith' gesture."

Why is this about Republicans? Bush Derangement Syndrome and multilateral political correctness has reached new heights among the morally bankrupt and excusatory left.

Al Qaeda's Mistakes

Among its many blunders: Videotaping decapitations, the overzealous killing of Muslims (resulting in Sunni's and Shi'ites rejecting its murderous ways), and of course perpetrating 9/11, which awoke the sleeping giant, al Qaeda has fumbled again.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two "boasted that the U.S. was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts."

Interesting that Zawahiri should state this position when Muslims in Iraq are now offering bounties for the capture of al Qaeda leaders.

But as Gateway Pundit noted, Zawahiri stole Harry Reid's talking points. In fact, he stole the Democrats' talking points on the war. In preaching America's defeat, Zawahiri is only reinforcing the well-established Democratic Party line, and strengthening the resolve of those who are determined to see through to victory.

When Zawahiri says:

"The Crusaders themselves have testified to their defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the lions of the Taliban," he said. "The Crusaders have testified to their own defeat in Iraq at the hands of the mujahideen, who have taken the battle of Islam to the heart of the Islam world."

...he is speaking specifically of Harry Reid's "war is lost" comments from April 2007.

Ironically, as Zawahiri professes America's "failure," regurgitating Harry Reid's shameful politicking, the AP reports:

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday that a seven-month-old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate...

On Thursday, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of about 32 to 12 per day.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

The AP beat me to it. I was on the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count earlier today, and noted that September's total Iraqi Security Force and Civilian deaths stood at 530 so far, whereas the entire month of August totaled 1,674.

Additionally, a look at U.S. military fatalities reveals that as of today, September deaths are the lowest this year by far, and at the lowest pace since August 2006.

The effectiveness of al Qaeda's killing machine is clearly diminished. I can't wait to see what DailyKos writes about the casualty count... probably something to the effect of "Iraqi civilian deaths greater in September than September 2002 under Saddam!"

Then again, Kos bloggers have already declared that they don't support the troops, what more needs to be said?

It is at least heartening that some liberal bloggers are openly disgusted with the Demcorats' weak opposition and squandered opportunities. Democrats can hardly lead a majority in Congress, how would they fight a war? For these reasons, many political observers are asking: Who bears blame for anti-war failures?:

For many in Washington, the biggest unanswered question from Army. Gen. David Petraeus’ high-profile, low-satisfaction testimony last week was not about military strategy but about political tactics. Why has the anti-war movement been unable to translate the clear public mandate they claim into any clear change in our government’s Iraq policy?

To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days.

But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.

Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.

H/T Instapundit.

And what "change in course" do the Democrats even propose? Answer: Stop training the Iraqi Police and Army.

We also learn that al Qaeda, in its hubris, has decided to open yet another front in its war: Al Qaeda Bin Laden Message Declares War on Pakistan President Musharraf.

Enemies of al Qaeda should welcome this declaration. If bin Laden and Zawahiri are delusional enough to think that while losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can open a third front in their war, American and Pakistan should seize the opportunity and welcome the excuse to kill more terrorists.

The convergence of al Qaeda's goals, and that of the pusillanimous Democrats is as ironic as it is sad. Worse, still for the Democrats, they don't even appear aware that they are being played.

The Defeatist

Donal Kagan: Today's Defeatists:

The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

And a historical analogy... the Civil War:

In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, “that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory.” Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!” The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens.”

The Democratic convention was dominated by the anti-war faction whom the Republicans called “Copperheads,” after the poisonous snake. According to their best historian, they were “consistent and constant in their demand for an immediate peace settlement. At times they were willing to trade victory for peace. One persistent problem for [them] was their refusal or reluctance to offer a realistic and comprehensive plan for peace.” Pressed by the Copperheads, the Democrats nominated a rabidly antiwar candidate for vice president and adopted a platform that called the war a “failure,” and demanded “immediate efforts” to end hostilities….” Their platform statement would permit abandonment not only of emancipation, but of the most basic war aim, reunion. Even New York’s Republican Party boss declared that Lincoln’s reelection was widely regarded as an “impossibility…The People [were] wild for Peace.” At the end of August defeat for the Republicans and the Union cause seemed inevitable, but Lincoln refused to seek peace without victory, saying that he was not prepared, to “give up the Union for a peace which, so achieved, could not be of much duration.”

No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war. The Democrats, having declared or predicted defeat were, as one historian has written: “Tarred as traitors, regardless of their actual positions on the war, Democrats were … roundly thrashed in November. In fact, the stench of treason clung to the Democrats for years; nearly a generation would pass before another Democrat, Grover Cleveland, occupied the White House.”

Sound familiar? Many of these allegations of military "failure" have been repeatedly uttered by the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

History has already been doomed to repeat itself.

Let us hope the Iraqi Civil War turns out as ours did - with hope, reconstruction, and peace.

Murtha In The Crosshairs

Hot Air has the video: Rep. Jack Murtha confronted about Haditha accusations

And as Hot Air notes, it just so happens that the charges against another Marine got dropped today.

Gateway Pundit has more: Cold-Blooded Jeff Gannon Confronts Murtha on Haditha (Video)

Murtha Quickly Redeploys to the Next Question.Washington reporter Jeff Gannonconfronts "Cold-Blooded" John Murtha during a Congressional Press Conference yesterday on Capital Hill. Gannon asks Murtha if he will apologize to the Haditha Marines he slandered!

More here.

The man has no shame.

1,220,580 Iraqi Civilians Dead, Says British POLL!

Incredulous Poll results flaunted by DailyKos: One Million-Plus Violent Iraqi Deaths (So Far)

This from a "respected British marketing firm."

Gauging Iraqi civilian deaths from a poll... Hmm, where have we seen this before?

If they weren't grasping at straws before, they are now.

By my (very) unscientific estimate, if you assume 5 years of war (a generous estimate) X 365 days a year = 1,825 days since the war began, and divide that number by the 1,220,580 deaths this poll claims, you come to:

668.8 deaths per day!

The website Iraq Casualty Count currently reflects 477 deaths for the month of September.

Are the many U.S. media reports and Iraqi Health Ministry tallies wildly underestimating the deaths, or is this British poll promoted by DailyKos agenda driven and wildly off the mark?

Use your own sound judgement.

Update: As a commenter on LGF put it: "They completely turn off their suspension of disbelief." (Thanks Hillary)

Update: My (very) unscientific calculations were off. I gave the pollsters too much credit. Their numbers would actually imply 743.35 deaths per day!

Update: Harry Reid is a believer: "Nothing has changed since the surge started. Today, now we learn that 1 million Iraqis have been killed since the war started. A million. That’s pretty hard to comprehend…" (H/T LGF reader)

A Democratic Nightmare

Defeat at Any Price

The Democrats were scared for a reason. They worried that Petraeus would impress the country as dispassionate and serious--which he did. He called Bush's troop surge no unqualified success, said that much work remains--but that Iraq has turned a corner; has achieved tangible, important results in its fight against terrorism and inter-sect violence since the surge began. It was a Democratic nightmare.

Read the rest.

Some Bank On Withdrawal And Defeat

Obama wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible:

CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

The presidential hopeful would have us relinquish the advantage built on hard fought victories, just as AQI miscalculates:

If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, they severely miscalculated in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI

To heighten the degree of America's successful pursuit of victory since 9/11, Larry Kudlow writes:

Since September 11, the economy hasn’t suffered a single down quarter. In fact, it has notched 23 straight quarters of economic growth … Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What’s more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

H/T Dr. Sanity


Even the marginally liberal Economist argues that the United States must stay.



However, for a Democratic presidential victory, those who would downplay American success in the war on terror have not only ignored the fact that al Qaeda is on the run around the world and in Iraq, but even resort to launching a character assassination attack on the General. Hillary Clinton is guilty as well.


My party, the Democrats, need Petraeus to lose. It's unfortunate, although perhaps a necessity within the political sphere that one side take the contrary view for the sake of it. And in doing so, they group themselves with American enemies such as Iran and the ousted Iraq Baath party.


Too bad for Democrats this view banks on American defeat. Too bad for America, as well.

Rudy Giuliani Takes Out an Ad, Too

Courtesy, Weasel Zippers.

Allahpundit at Hot Air isn't happy with Giuliani.

More back story:

Giuliani Times: Rudy Demands Same Deep Discount MoveOn Got From NYT

More: Confirmed: NYT gave MoveOn almost two-thirds off on “Betray Us” ad; Update: Pro-war group says it was charged “significantly more” for its ad

Petraeus polls well: General PersuadeUs: 43% Back Petraeus Recommendations, 38% Oppose

Gateway Pundit: Giuliani & Thompson Blast Hillary/MoveOn Attacks on Petraeus!

Harry Reid Explains Why Democrats Are Losing

It's Tim Johnson and Joe Lieberman's fault.

I'm not kidding.

That was Senator Harry Reid's contention today in an NPR interview.

First, the meandering, banal preamble:

NPR Reporter: "Democrats have tried and failed to pass resolutions mandating troop withdrawals, or timetables... What exactly do you plan to lay out in the coming weeks?"

Reid: "We're gonna continue to lay out for the American people the fact that we need a change of direction in the war in iraq. We clearly need that.

Reporter: "What specific change?"

Reid: "The mission needs to be changed, the mission needs to be changed. It needs to be changed by having American troops begin to start coming home in signifcant numbers, and that troops that are left there be used for counterterrorism, and protecting the assets we have there. And on a very limited basis, perhaps, and only on a limited basis, to help train Iraqis.


"Remember I've - I say that the Iraqis have been trained, and trained and trained - what we have from the president is continually: 'we need patience, we need patience.' Well, my patience has worn out, as has the patience of the American people."

I can hear Harry Reid's re-election song now: "Changes" by David Bowie. Here in reality, the reporter has actually lost patience with Reid:

Reporter: "So you've lost patience. Some wonder why the Democrats aren't more aggressive in making their next move."

She basically asked Reid why Democrats bent on defeat abroad, seem doomed to defeat at home?

Reid: "Make sure that everyone understands that listens to this program: We're in the majority, but it's a very slim majority. All the votes that have taken place to this point have been with Tim Johnson being sick. As a result of that, he's been recuperaing, he's back now and we hope to have him with us now.

"But, on the Iraqi issue, with Joe Lieberman, who votes with us on virtually everything else, voting with the Republicans, I'm in the minority. I have 49 Democrats, and there are 50 Republicans. So we have been in the minority, and I think we have fought very hard to have the President change course."

That is perhaps the most pathetic excuse I've heard yet from a politician. Democrats are suffering repeated tactical defeat after defeat, not because they have a losing policy, or because their will is vastly weaker than that of their opponents, or that they suffer from a vacuum of ideas.

No, it is the fault of one previously comatose Democratic Senator, and another Democratic Senator who votes his conscience at the expense of his own party's vitriol.

Reid (and Pelosi) fared no better with another reporter when openly asked why they continue to fail time and again.

The Left-Wing Assault On Petraeus

...has hit it into high gear. The "news agency" Inter Press Service has published:

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

Who is Gareth Porter? From Wikipedia:

Gareth Porter (born June 18, 1942 in Independence, Kansas) is a U.S. Americanhistorian, investigative journalist and policy analyst on U.S. foreign
and military policy. A strong opponent of U.S. wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, he has also written on the potential for diplomatic compromise to end or avoid wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, Korea, Iraq and Iran. He is the author of a revisionist history of the origins of the Vietnam War, Perils of Dominance:Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

What to make of this? Certainly, military service members are known for colorful language and frankness. However, this report should be taken with less than a grain of salt for a number of reasons:

• No source is named
• A Washington Post article with more anonymous sources is referenced.
• This quote has conveniently surfaced just in time for Petraeus' briefing to Congress
• The news source IPS not only lacks credibility, but calls itself the leading news agency:

IPS, civil society's leading news agency, is an independent voice from the South and for development, delving into globalisation for the stories underneath. Another communication is possible.

It's all too convenient that a quote describing Petraeus as eager to please a superior would surface just as the antiwar left has tried to characterize Petraeus as following president Bush's orders.

The likelihood that an Admiral would address his subordinate in such a way smacks of unprofessionalism that is not the hallmark of the United States military.

Perhaps it is easier for the left to suspend its disbelief in the military bearing and professionalism of our military.

Petraeus a chickenshit... The idea that a man who has so far spent four years in the midst of a bloody war in Iraq is somehow afraid is beyond ridiculous. But it's what the left would like to believe.

And of course, Think "Progress" picked up and ran with the "story." Even Markos "screw them" Moulitsas of DailyKos jumped on the chance to slander the commander on the ground:

Listen to the commanders! But only if they suck up to Bush and the neocon's conceits and fantasies.

*Here are some other IPS Stories by Porter. You decide. The man has been interviewed on AntiWar Radio.

This just adds to the continued left-wing attack on the integrity of General David Petraeus to cover up their own failures. Other Petraeus attacks by the anti-war crowd:

Is Petraeus’ Drawdown Part Of The White House’s 2008 Political Strategy?

The New York Times gave MoveOn.org a 2/3 discount for its "Betray Us" ad.

General Hillary Clinton lectured Petraeus about the war. But then she got lectured.

Will ‘victory’ in Iraq make us safer?

And, of course - Video Archaelogy: Calling Petraeus A Traitor Traced To MSNBC/Olbermann

No Patience For Petraeus Or Victory

Maybe they're annoyed that most Americans trust the military... more than the politicians, at least. (H/T Hot Air).

Or perhaps they fear what he has to say (More likely they want to steal the spotlight).

But as Ed Morissey asks, just who exactly is betraying us?

Using a schoolyard manipulation of General David Petraeus’ last name, MoveOn asked in a full-page advertisement whether this honorable commander would betray
his nation for the sake of a temporary political advantage. Calling the MNF-I commander “Betray-Us”, the Democratic activist organization accused the general of deliberately misreporting the results of the war effort to boost the Bush administration.

At Heading Right, I question who's betraying whom. I question MoveOn's patriotism. I suggest that MoveOn and the Democrats who support the organization would gladly commit character assassination of the lowest order against a man who has served this nation for decades in such an honorable fashion that the Senate voted unanimously to give him command of our forces in Iraq just eight months ago.

If you ask some anti-war critics, Petraeus is not brave at all. On the contrary:

There were some brave and intrepid souls who endured every word of the six-anda-half hours of testimony before the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees.

I do not consider defeatist cowards who are only interested in trying to promote Myths and falsehoods about progress in Iraq for their own political agenda, and to get their own politicians elected as brave souls. In fact, the sacrifice of your own country's honor for political gain is pathetic. Donald Kagan has more on the history of American defeatists... and why they (heh) lost:

They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

Anti-war critics have no patience for victory. They don't even have patience for their own anti-war movement. (H/T Instapundit):

A well-known anti-war leader has gone public with the transcript of a private conference call that shows peace activists are exasperated with the Democratic congressional leadership and at a loss for a long-term strategy.

Not the first time the anti-war left has changed its mind. Glenn Reynolds:

I've noticed that the mantra has gone from "listen to the generals" to "stop hiding behind the generals." Whatever. Jules Crittenden has related thoughts.

It's ironic, Democrats are criticizing Maliki's government for its lack of unity, when they themselves lack unity: Democrats Deeply Divided Over Iraq. Or, if you're Chuck Schumer, you just whitewash your own words to pretend you never said what you said. "You are a coward, Senator!" says Gateway Pundit.

So their proxies must attack the General to deflect negative media attention from themselves:

Think "Progress": Petraeus Spent At Least 17 Days In August Flacking For Bush’s Escalation

And as Let Freedom Ring blog notes, Democrats themselves are not above attacking the General: Reid: Petraeus’ Testimony Is White House Spin

More on MoveOn from Michelle Malkin and Pat Dollard.

Reviews for 'Redacted'

Nothing spectacular, says Variety and Time Out Magazine.

From Time Out:

“The look of seemingly fly-on-the-wall footage can sometimes give a story a gritty immediacy — surely what De Palma is seeking — but it can also create an air of improvisation, playfulness and even comedy, and that’s what happens too often here — which isn’t very helpful when you’re trying to convey the real horror of a street-kidnapping or a decapitation. The greatest flaw is that the actors generally aren’t up to the task and so don’t convince as US soldiers — they play like actors playing US soldiers. Much of the film — bar a compelling episode at a reconstructed US army checkpoint where suspicious cars are checked or, too often, fired upon — has a rushed, unrehearsed air to it. One suspects that De Palma has mistook a lack of preparation with his actors for the path to convincing realism.”

Don't worry, I won't be seeing it.