More Iraqi News You Won't Find in the MSM

First there is this from Ed Morrissey

Turkey and Iraq have reached
agreement on a new security partnership and have signed an agreement to
fight terrorism on both sides of their shared border. The development
strengthens the credibility of Nouri al-Maliki's government, especially since
the Turks had to dispense with a major demand:

Iraq and Turkey have signed a security agreement aimed at curbing the
activities of the Turkish Kurdish separatist group, the PKK.

However, the final agreement does not include a key Turkish proposal that
its troops be allowed to pursue PKK fighters over the border into Iraq. The
proposal had been strongly opposed by the Kurdish officials in Iraq.
Turkey says they will continue to press the issue of hot pursuit for PKK
terrorists. They will have much less leverage now, however, after the completion
of these negotiations. Maliki needed the prestige that came with a partnership
with Turkey, and he needed to make sure the Kurds did not see Turkish troops
crossing the border. He's unlikely to back down now that he has the security
agreement in hand.

This does nothing to resolve the continued rivalries between their own sects, but developing relationships with their neighbors helps strengthen the central government and strengthening the central government does help lead to eventual compromise among the parties.

Bill Roggio has this about AQI's ever decreasing sphere of influence.

Nine months after the announcement of the Baghdad Security Plan and the
subsequent "surge" of US forces, the battle for Baghdad remains engaged. With
the effort to secure Baghdad from al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army alike, the
southwestern security district of Doura has proven difficult to tame. The
soldiers of the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment are currently engaged
in a heated battle against al Qaeda in Iraq in a corner of Doura.

Commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Rod Coffey, the Wolfpack of the 3rd
Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment arrived in Baghdad in August and assumed
control of the battlespace in a dangerous segment of Doura on September 7. The
Wolfpack’s area of operation consists of the neighborhoods of Shurta, Asiya, and
Mechanics, which are nestled in the far eastern corner of the Rashid district.
(Rashid was split into Bayaa and Doura for the purpose of the Baghdad Security
Plan.)

The three neighborhoods are divided by long strips of open space, each
several hundred meters across and run north to south. Shurta and Asiya are
described as relatively safe after the Wolfpack cleared the two neighborhoods
upon arrival. Residents “are supportive and provide tips,” Coffey said while on
patrol in the neighborhoods.

The good news of the day out of Iraq is this

U.S.-led forces have killed one of the most important leaders of Al Qaeda
in Iraq, a Tunisian believed connected to the kidnapping and killings last
summer of American soldiers, a top commander said Friday.

Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson said the death of the terrorist in a U.S.
airstrike Tuesday south of Baghdad, and recent similar operations against Al
Qaeda, have left the organization in Iraq fractured.

"Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders ... the emir of
foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle," Anderson
said.

Al-Tunisi was a leader in helping bring foreign terrorists into the country
and his death "is a key loss" to Al Qaeda leadership there, Anderson told a
Pentagon news conference.

On the political reconciliation front, we have this

Iraq's Sunni vice president held a rare meeting Thursday with the country's
top Shiite cleric to seek support for a 25-point blueprint for political reform,
the latest effort by both Islamic sects to promote unity amid unrelenting
violence.
...

Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi said Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani praised
his initiative during their two-hour meeting in the holy city of Najaf, 100
miles south of Baghdad. The reclusive Shiite spiritual leader previously has met
with Sunni clerics, but it was his first meeting with a senior government
official from the disaffected minority Islamic sect, aides said.

"He generally blesses the initiative," al-Hashemi said, saying he found
al-Sistani politically "neutral" and eager to promote national unity.

Al-Sistani has played a key role in shaping the political future of Iraq
following the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime and wields considerable
influence over Shiite politicians and their followers.

It should be noted that previous such initiatives have failed, however I firmly believe that Iraqi politicians are learning how to be politicians and every failure brings them one step closer to success. Stay tuned.

Soros Story Finds a New Tentacle

Hat tip to Sweetness & Light

Why is Mr. George Soros’s famously well-heeled Open Society Institute getting donations from from agencies of the US federal government, as well as the United Palestinian Appeal — which is a relief charity.

The answer is not readily known and that is probably just the way that Soros likes it. Most likely he has gotten into bed with someone to funnel money from a government agency into his own group. His group is not much of a charity and mostly just funnels money to smear merchants. Stay tuned because this party of the story has just begun.

An Alternative Iranian Policy

Joe Conason penned this piece explaining how he would deal with the Iranian regime. I will take things one at a time. First, he lays out the current policy as he sees it.

The loud, angry and sterile debate over the Iranian president's visit to
Columbia University raises a more serious problem that has long confounded
American policymakers: How to cope with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's real masters, the corrupt regime of mullahs who determine both foreign and domestic policy in
Iran. Their rule has meant awful suffering for the Iranian people, whose
democratic aspirations remain frustrated, and instability for the Middle East
and the world, as the leadership in Tehran constantly seeks provocations to
distract from its own failures.

Now the same geopolitical geniuses who promoted the invasion of Iraq -- and
thereby endowed the mullahs with more influence than they ever enjoyed before --
insist that the only solution is another war. They claim that we are already at
war and should begin bombing Iranian nuclear and military sites as soon as
possible.

Obviously, he has no use for Bush or his neoconservative administration and that is fine. Somewhere around two thirds of Americans and more agree with him. What is troubling about his assertion that the administration is marching toward war and that is the only solution. What I believe is closer to the truth is that Bush has relied on the UN and the Europeans for far too long and has put war so far on the back burner that the Iranian regime has become emboldened. It isn't that Bush has foresaken diplomacy, in my opinion, but that he has relied too much on it. The two countries have had several high level meetings vis a vis Iraq and all that has happened is that the weaponry from Iran used to kill our soldiers has only increased.

Conason believes that our isolationist policy has gotten no results but the Clinton admin made engagement their policy with regards to the Syrians and the Palestinians throughout the nineties, and I assert that those policies were significantly more counter productive than ours. I assert that the problem is that while we isolate the Europeans engage. If we can come together on a full court isolationist policy, that would have devastating results. While it isn't a perfect model, the South African apartheid government was brought down largely through coordinated isolation. I don't know any despot and tyrant who was brought down through engagement.
Conason continues...
"

Once merely a small-time populist politician in his hometown, Ahmadinejad has
become a folk hero throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds thanks to his
provocations against America, Israel and the West. Sunni Muslims and
secular-minded Arabs who might otherwise oppose Shiite authoritarianism applaud
him because they perceive him as standing up for them against Western
oppressors. Each expression of American outrage against the Iranian president
from afar, every screaming tabloid headline and radio rant, only inflates the
significance of this unimpressive and fundamentally unimportant man. And the
constant threats of war from within the Bush White House and its neoconservative
echo chamber intensify the effectiveness of his propaganda, both within his own
country and across the Middle East.

Here Conason is just merely engaging in misrepresentation or out and out lying. Ahmadinejad is no folk hero anywhere, especially not in his country. Fortunately, unlike, Conason, I have a little more than mere assertions to back up my case. For proof, let's take a look at a poll of Iranians conducted just this past July

Iranians oppose the institution of an "unelected Supreme Leader" by 61-27
and favor democracy by 79-14. So when liberals assail neocons for having a naive
faith in peoples' aspirations for freedom, they are just wrong - even in Iran.

* Iranians want nuclear power more than nuclear weapons. Suffering under
gasoline rationing and falling energy exports, three-quarters said that
developing nuclear power, without weapons, was "very important." By contrast,
only 37 percent said developing nuclear weapons was a similar priority. Since
the Iranian regime says that it wants nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, its
stated position accords with its people's views. (The government, of course, is
lying and wants to get a bomb.)

The survey underscores the need to separate nuclear power from weaponry in
the minds of the people and make clear that Western sanctions are designed to
prevent Iran from getting the bomb, not power or energy.

* Iranians would gladly agree to "full inspections and a guarantee that
Iran would not develop nuclear weapons" if other nations would increase overall
trade and investment (80 percent), increase investment in the energy sector (79
percent), give humanitarian assistance (80 percent) or assist in helping Iran
develop peaceful nuclear energy (80 percent).

* Only 33 percent said supporting terrorist proxies Hezbollah or Hamas was
a priority, and 55 percent are ready to endorse full recognition of Israel and
of a Palestinian state if they could get "normal trade and full recognition"
from the United States. Almost two-thirds - 64 percent - said that they are
willing to end Iranian assistance to armed groups in Iraq and 51 percent would
forgo nuclear weaponry and accept full international controls and inspections in
return for normal relations with the United States.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has been roundly criticized for his own domestic economic policy

At the same time, the traditional conservatives and their natural allies, the
bazarries, the country's small merchant class who control much of the Iranian
economy, are increasingly alarmed about Ahmadinejad’s policies. The influential
head of Tehran's bazaar guilds, Ahmad Karimi, recently stated that economics is
a science and those who have neglected its basic principals -- meaning the
Ahmadinejad administration -- can no longer evade responsibility by blaming
others for their mismanagement. Iran's influential Friday prayer leaders, most
of whom are conservative, have also heaped contempt on the president for his
economic policies. The mainstream political analyst Amir Mohebbian, in an
interview with Roozonline daily, stated that the conservative faction can no
longer afford to conceal its widening internal schisms -- implying that the time
for compromise with the militant faction has passed.

If this is praise, I have to wonder what exactly someone needs to say for Conason to consider it condemnation. As for the rest of Middle East, mostly Sunni to Ahmadinejad's Shia, they are almost universally petrified of him. So much so that there was nothing but whispers to the recent bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear site. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia just entered into an arms deal specifically to counter the threat from Iran that the Saudis fear.

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf states worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade. Defence
officials quoted by US media said the sales would include advanced weaponry,
missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships. It is said to
be an attempt to counter the regional threat posed by Iran.

The rest of the Middle East feels pretty much the same way. Most of the entire Middle East considers Iran nothing but a threat to their very existence
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan regard the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah triangle (as voiced through the press, and not from the regimes themselves) as a sort of axis of radical policy, the muqawamah--the "Shi'a storm" as King Abdallah of Jordan dared call it--or as a group that strives for an Islamic Middle East. Such terms were being applied to this axis even before the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. The Arab countries were aware of Iran, the ambitious giant that rose up from the East, at least since Ahmadinejad's election as president, but they consciously chose to ignore this. In the accord from the March 2006 Arab summit in Khartoum, the only reference to Iran was, as in the past, the demand to return the three islands over which there is dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

Unlike me, Conason, has absolutely no back up for his assertion that Ahmadinejad is some sort of a populist in most of the Middle East. The truth is much closer to his being perceived as a madman on the scale of the greatest madmen of all time a la Adolph Hitler.
Conason continues...

The moment of dialogue at Columbia, by contrast, shrank Ahmadinejad back down to a more realistic size. Unlike Tehran, where his thugs can intimidate, imprison
and even murder those who dare to question him, he had to stand and listen
meekly as Columbia students and president Lee Bollinger demanded answers about
his government's repressive acts. Although Bollinger went over the top in
parroting various White House themes in his brusque language, his commitment to
free speech reflected well on the United States.

If only that were true, but I already debunked this myth just yesterday. Here are some excerpts of reaction to his speech from the Middle East and beyond...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States
bysuggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home
onWednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den.”
Generally,politicians and media in the Islamic Republic — even some who have
previouslycriticized the president — described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York
as atriumph and denounced the university president who called him “a petty and
crueldictator.” ...The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and
onTuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders
theissue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was “closed” and that military threats
andsanctions had failed.“By fearlessly and courageously walking into the‘Lion’s
Den’ ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslimstreet than
before,” the daily Iran News wrote."...

Ahmadinejad is hitting the blind spots, the stuff polite society does not
talkabout, that is his attractionHis comments on the bomb are more intelligent
thanthe drivel you read in the Western press by so called analysts.Basically the
US,Western countries have lost the moral highground - Putin's talkbacks prove
thattoo -- No I would not vote for Ahmadinejad, if I lived in Iran - you vote
forhim, he is not a dictator ... to use words like fascism in an Iranian
contextdoes not make sense ... yes the party I would vote for is illegal in Iran
...,no I would not vote for Putin

Thus, whatever Conason thinks of the reaction to his speech, in reality, it was as I predicted a PR coup for him where it mattered, the Middle East.

Conason then leads us into his own ideas for dealing with the regime...

When the sideshow ends and the mullahs' puppet returns to Tehran, we will
still have to decide how to deal with the regime he represents. As Peter
Galbraith explains in a penetrating essay in the current issue of The New York
Review of Books, the Bush administration has vastly empowered the Iranian
leaders by overthrowing their enemy Saddam Hussein and installing their Shiite
allies as Baghdad's new government.

With 160,000 American troops in Iraq, moreover, we are not exactly in the
optimal strategic position to wage war against Iran, despite the bloody
fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney. Unlike Saddam in 2003, whose armed
forces disintegrated within days, Tehran has a real army and air force, and
sufficient naval power to block the Iraqi ports. Our forces would have to fight
not only the 800,000-man Iranian army but also the Shiite militias, who could
swiftly cut our resupply route.

Let's leave aside the balance of power question for a minute and deal with the idea that having 160K in troops on his border somehow puts us in a weaker position militarily to strike at him. That is absurd on its face and needs no link to be disproven. The simple fact is that we had troops all throughout Western Europe specifically as a military challenge to the Soviet Union, and we continue to have troops on the Korean border for the exact same reason. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war claiming that having troops in Iraq puts us in a poorer position to strike Iran is just intellectually bankrupt. As to the Iraqi government being beholden to Iran, well the beauty of democratically elected governments is that they tranisegent. The people of Iraq will be no happier with a puppet Iranian theocracy anymore than they were happy with Saddam's baathist, but the only difference is that this government can be voted out.

Acting like Saddam should have been kept in power because he would act as a counter weight to an equally evil rival is pretty absurd. Trying to resolve issues by relying on several evil regimes holding some sort of a delicate balance would eventually blow up in your face and lead to all sorts of unintended consequences.
Conason finishes...

It is an ugly prospect to contemplate, with potential losses that would
dwarf our casualties in Iraq and an aftermath that would be still more chaotic,
dangerous and ruinous to our reputation. Assuming we would eventually win, would
that mean taking control of Iran -- with the same kind of "success" we have
enjoyed next door?

The alternative is what Iran's courageous democratic dissidents have long
implored us to do, and what the Iraq Study Group urged last year. Engage the
regime, draw Iran into the world economic system and penetrate its closed
borders peacefully to strengthen its civil society and weaken its overgrown
theocratic state. Stop making heroes of the villainous mullahs and their
puppets, and start dividing the pragmatists and reformers from the fanatics. And
mute the threats that in Iranian eyes justify a nuclear weapons
program.

That would be the beginning of wisdom.

Anyone reading this should have long become weary of every assertion Conason makes. He backs absolutely nothing up. He seems to take as fact that propping a theocracy up economically will somehow help our cause. For instance he claims we are uniting reformers and fanatics. Not only did the poll I cited utterly refute that, but how exactly does propping up the economy divide those groups. Furthermore, he asserts that dissidents have long implored that we engage the regime. Who are these dissidents? None that I know of say that we should engage with the regime. He claims that we are making them heroes, which, again, I thoroughly debunked as well. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that one will find all over college campuses as they willfully ignore evidence to the contrary.

I am not against engaging with evil sociopaths like Ahmadinejad per se. For instance, the U.S. and Britain engaged one of the worst in history in Joseph Stalin in WWII. However, there was something different there. Stalin felt a threat worse than the U.S. in Hitler and used the enemy of my enemy logic. We don't have that here. Even when Reagan engaged Gorbachev, who I must make sure everyone understands is every bit a reasonable person and no sociopath, he did it only after he built up the arms race so that the Soviets were crumbling. Peace through strength is not a mere slogan but proper diplomacy when dealing with enemies. Simply meeting because you feel dialogue is always the answer is totally counter productive when you are dealing with sociopaths. Sociopaths have goals and all that matters to them is accomplishing those goals. Ahmadinejad wants to rule the Middle East and kill everyone he disagrees with and any meeting will be used on his part to accomplish that goal.

As someone so aptly put once "The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." If we are going to negotiate with Ahmadinejad it is with that thought in mind, not with any of the touchy feely ideas that Conason has.

Finally, if you want an alternative to Conason's alternative please read her

Iraq By The Numbers

Michael Goldfarb, of the Worldwide Standard, has a piece everyone needs to take a look at. As September turns into October, we now have overwhelming and definitive proof that through scientific analysis the surge is working and deaths are down.

Meanwhile, Coalition casualties are remarkably low for the month of September,
with 60* U.S. troops KIA
so far this month. With a little luck, this will be the lowest count in more
than a year. But one also needs to figure in the increase in force levels.
...
And as far as Iraqi units, while they are increasing in number and
visibility, their casualties dropped dramatically over the last two months--this
will be the first time ever that Iraqi Security Forces will see two consecutive
months with less than 100 KIA (barring a major incident over the weekend). Also,
the number of civilians killed has dropped to just over 600, the first time that
numbers been below 1,000 in over a year, and less than a quarter of what it was
in March (2,762). (All numbers from iCasualties.org)

So, the deaths for U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are all at their lowest levels in over a year at least. All of the upper level military will continue to maintain that these levels continue to be too high, and they are, however the important thing is trajectory. Deaths continue to drop no matter how they are analyzed and as September turns into October and eventually we get to 2008, if we continue as such, we will soon get to a level of violence, or lack thereof, that is acceptable.

Now, let's look at the other side. How many bad guys are being killed?

More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces
since the insurgency began more than four years ago, according to military
statistics released for the first time.
The statistics show that 4,882
militants were killed in clashes with coalition forces this year, a 25% increase
over all of last year.
The increase in enemy deaths this year reflects more
aggressive tactics adopted by American forces and an additional 30,000 U.S.
troops ordered by the White House this year.

So, good guys deaths are down and bad guy's deaths are up. I am not a math wizard or military strategist but it sounds to that if we employ the Iraq by the numbers analysis things are looking better and better everyday in Iraq.

George Soros Update

The new tidbits come from Michelle Malkin's web site Hot Air...

both of these involve the Clinton's. The first involves yet another fundraising scandal for Hillary...

Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record
campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s presidential campaign, documents show.

At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT)
fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined
$775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with
consulting firms hired by it.

In addition, the group’s former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold
Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In
FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for
travel-related costs.

ACT is one of the many attack groups that Soros funds in order to do his dirty work and Ickes is the former White House staffer in the Bill Clinton White House.

The second one involves Bill Clinton getting hot when talk of the Betray Us ad popped up. He takes the new nuanced position that has become the modis operandi to explain away the Betray Us ad without condemning it specifically. He tries to equate a personal attack on the commanding general in the battlefield with your standard issue attacks on political opponents. When this ad came up, he compared it to the attacks on Clelland and Kerry. Now, if Dems think that these are equivalent I look forward to all of them making that part of their platform. If they think the public will be fooled, well, then we will see...

More Momentum for the Divesting from Iran Movement

In his latest column, Dick Morris lays out the momentum building for divesting from any company that does business with Iran. While a lot of it has also been brought to light on this very blog, you will find some new and very encouraging information about efforts by the state of New York (which if true would mean all three of the biggest states are on their way). Here is the latest from Dick Morris

Columbia University this week managed to hand a PR victory to Iran's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's time for another New York institution - the
state Office of the Comptroller - to join the drive to undermine this evil and
dangerous regime.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to sign a new law aimed at
banning Golden State public pension funds - which includes the two largest ones
in America - from investing in companies that are involved in developing Iranian
petroleum or natural-gas resources. Florida's public-employee-retirement fund is
divesting nearly $1.3 billion invested with 21 companies doing business in Iran
or Sudan. (California already hit Sudan's pocketbook last year.) Missouri and
Louisiana have similar policies in place.

The blow to Iran's rulers should be huge. The California system alone has
assets totaling $350 billion - much of it invested in companies that do business
with Iran such as Sieman's, Total, Respol and Shell.Here in New York, state
Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has total power over the state pension funds. He
could add materially to the pressure on Iran simply by the stroke of a pen. City
Comptroller William Thompson Jr. could help, by pushing to move Gotham pension
funds away from Iranian-investing companies.

City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) is sponsoring a
resolution calling on the state and the city to disinvest in companies that do
business with Iran. He says that more than $100 billion of the holdings by New
York public pension funds are invested directly or indirectly in Iran.

It is time to help all you New Yorkers, please contact your assembly

Divesting From Iran Gains Momentum

On the heels of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signing into law California's intention to divest their pension funds from any company that currently does business in or with Iran comes this from Newsmax

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the state’s largest public pension funds to
stop investing in firms that do business in Iran because of that nation’s
support of state-sponsored terrorism. Perry also asked the $24.9 billion
Employee Retirement System and the $108 billion Teachers Retirement System to
withdraw investments from some of the companies with links to Iran,
Bloomberg.com reports.

“While Texas cannot set its own foreign policy, we can send a strong
message that Texans will not condone Iran’s continued support of those seeking
to do harm to our men and women in uniform,” Perry said in a news release issued
on Tuesday.

Perry has already signed a bill to pull pension investments from companies
operating in Sudan because of the genocide in the Darfur region. A similar bill
covering Iran was not passed by the legislature, and Perry now says he may call
a special legislative session to revisit the issue.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked the state’s largest public pension funds to stop investing in firms that do business in Iran because of that nation’s support of state-sponsored terrorism. Perry also asked the $24.9 billion Employee Retirement System and the $108 billion Teachers Retirement System to withdraw investments from some of the companies with links to Iran, Bloomberg.com reports.

.
This is huge everyone. Between California and Texas we have two of the three biggest states either signing into law or announcing their intentions as such. This movement is growing but it needs help. All those in Texas need to get on the horn and call your Reps and Senators.

I Take No Joy in Being Right

The early verdict is in. Ahmadinejad was a big hit and scored a big PR coup following his speech at Columbia University. No, the glorious reviews didn't come from the New York Times or much of anywhere in our own Mainstream Media, but he did score, as I predicted, where he wanted to, all over the Middle East. Here is a sampling of what we will expect courtesy of the Iranian media (Hat tip to Little Green Footballs)

" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States by
suggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home on
Wednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den.” Generally,
politicians and media in the Islamic Republic — even some who have previously
criticized the president — described Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York as a
triumph and denounced the university president who called him “a petty and cruel
dictator.” ...
The president spoke at Columbia University on Monday and on
Tuesday addressed the U.N. General Assembly, where he told world leaders the
issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions was “closed” and that military threats and
sanctions had failed.
“By fearlessly and courageously walking into the
‘Lion’s Den’ ... he is sure to become even more of a hero in the Arab-Muslim
street than before,” the daily Iran News wrote

."
Here is some commentary for a Middle Eastern Blog

Ahmadinejad is hitting the blind spots, the stuff polite society does not talk
about, that is his attractionHis comments on the bomb are more intelligent than
the drivel you read in the Western press by so called analysts.Basically the US,
Western countries have lost the moral highground - Putin's talkbacks prove that
too -- No I would not vote for Ahmadinejad, if I lived in Iran - you vote for
him, he is not a dictator ... to use words like fascism in an Iranian context
does not make sense ... yes the party I would vote for is illegal in Iran ...,
no I would not vote for Putin
...
The primary thrust of Ahmadinejad's
speech has been completely ignored by everyone. That thrust, was the supreme
nobility of education,knowledge and truth. In an ominous veiled threat to
western Main stream media's cold calculated campaign of darkness and ignorance.
This was an excellent topic for this venue of a University forum. I am amazed at
how this vitally important subject has been totally ignored. It had monumental
implications. Not bad at all for a humble populist game cock like
Ahmadinejad

If that isn't bad enough, here are some comments from BBC online readers (again, the Hat Tip must go to Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson, the operator has been all over this story)

The president of Iran had a wonderful chance at Columbia to act as the more
educated and civil person, and he used that chance.America needs to recognize
that Iran’s hostilities will not falter as long as ours hold so high. A little
bit of trust could make them no longer have desire to use the weapons they may
or may not have. Unless the west intends on starting a war, it may be beneficial
to placate them, otherwise we won’t make any progress whatsoever.Columbia wasted
a good chance there.

Mr. Ahmadinijad is absolutely correct in saying why talking about Holocaust
is not compatible with freedom of speech.--What do you think would happen if the
west wanted to explore the Mohammed 'story'...Pop eye---Do you think ridiculing
God sent prophets is the same as exploring an event? Would you be happy if
someone did the same to Jesus/Moses?...---Well, do YOU think ridiculing a 6
million people genocide is the same as regarding the life of one? quid pro
quo..

The issue is CLOSED. If it is not then it may mean out and out war. Nobody
wants that. He is right in that his country has a right to nuclear energy. A
warring terrorist nuclear state nearby, his country feels unsafe. Much of Iran
was destroyed by Iraq! Ahmadenajad doesn't oppose Israelis but feels Israel
should be elsewhere for everybody's security. If it was, there would be no war
in that area! We speak of antipollutive actions yet deny Iran clean nuclear
energy. Moronic!

I can go on and on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Here are my prophetic words only a couple days ago

You have to understand who you are dealing with and Ahmadinejad is a sociopath.
He is only going to manipulate this to his advantage the way he always
manipulates everything. Does any really think it hurts his public standing that
Bollinger questioned him on civil rights, the Holocaust, etc. He wasn't
performing for our media or the Western media in general. He was performing for
the Middle East media, and they won't spin it as being called out, but rather
standing up to the mean, mean Americans and showing them who is boss. His
standing in the Middle East just improved exponentially thanks to the useful
idiot Lee Bollinger. In the larger scheme of things his appearance at Columbia
is not going to change things in the Middle East in any substantial way.
Ahmadinejad is not going to be able to ride this to any sort of long term PR
success, however as Americans, we must do what is in the best interest of
America not the terrorists. Inviting Ahmadinejad did not help America and it did
help our enemy and frankly enough is enough.

I think that in my disgust over this incident I overstated its importance. The dynamic of Middle Eastern geopolitics won't necessarily change from one speech at one naive and misguided Ivy League university. Still, this speech hurt our side and helped our enemies. The magnitude of that hurt is frankly besides the point because all Americans should wonder which side is Lee Bollinger on.

George Soros= The Political Keyser Soze

Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I
believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

That is one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies, The Usual Suspects. I believe in God as well, and the only person that politically scares me more than Hillary Clinton is George Soros. Once anyone studies the way he operates they should all realize that does to politics what Soze did to crime. Here is how Bill O'Reilly described his network

Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two
things: buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people with whom
he disagrees.
Now here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy
radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with
me on this. Most of Soros' political money flows through his Open
Society Institute. You see it there on the left, which is almost unlimited
funding.

Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has
given nearly $20 million to the Tides
Foundation right below that. An astounding amount.
Now Tides, in turn,
funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men who are all well paid. For
example, Tides has donated millions to the vile propaganda outfit Media Matters,
which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media
people. Media
Matters is an Internet site, but directly feeds its propaganda to some
mainstream media people including elements at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and
Paul Krugman at The New York
Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at
PBS. — In fact, as president of the Shoeman Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at
least a $500,000 transfer of money to Media Matters.

...

Now George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American
Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta,
and the Democracy Alliance Group, both of which fund Media Matters
as well. So you can see the enormous amount of money this Media Matters has
control of.

Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization Move On many,
many millions of dollars. — This group actively supports liberal politicians
like Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting
left-wing causes.

So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone
he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for
politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians
running for office do what he tells them to do.

If the liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be
denied funding and brutally attacked. — Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman about what Move On and Media
Matters did to him.

Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards
is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic
politicians may be as well.

The goal of George Soros, Peter Lewis, Suzy Thompkins Buell and other
radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. —By that I mean find and
fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.

In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is
the likes of George Soros — an extremist who wants open borders, a one world
foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia and on and on.

This is a shrewd, dangerous and devious individual. The network he has set up creates up to three degrees of separation from him and the attack dogs that he funds. One would only set up such a loose network if they never wanted to be found, a la Keyser Soze. So far he has stayed relatively under the radar. He may have over played his hand though. It just so happens that several of these Soros related groups are making the news all at once. We all now know about the vicious attack placed General Petraeus on the NY Times. O'Reilly has found himself in the cross hairs of a Soros proxy attack again. This is not the first time one of his proxies have attacked him. By his count, Media Matters has attacked him 109 times this year alone. Soros was also behind the infamous whistleblower James Hansen. The mainstream media fawned over him.

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to
stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt
reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA
headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures,
papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from
journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is
to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space
agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we
operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with
the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics
and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were
free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left
to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

He was portrayed as the little guy exposing the evil administration hiding their incompetence in dealing with an on the horizon epidemic. Unfortunately, either through outright lack of will or just incompetence, the media never got the whole story on Hansen. He was an opportunist being funded and propped up by yet another Soros proxy

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The
issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It
warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA’s official press policy, which
requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being
“silenced,” despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including
15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press
policy, Hansen states he had a “constitutional right” to grant interviews.
Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture
halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him. A report revealed just this week, shows the ‘Open Society Institute’ funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to “shape public policy,” is funded by billionaire
George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry’s 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros,
who once declared that “removing Bush from office was the ”central focus" of his
life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other
political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious — it’s a clear conflict of interest.

So, who is George Soros. Well, he is a multi billionaire, around 8.5 billion at last count. He is Jewish son of Holocaust survivors from Hungary. He first became famous all over the world by nearly bankrupting by short selling the British pound in 1992. He is currently wanted on insider trading charges in France. One could say he is the real life Gordon Gekko. What does Soros want to accomplish? He wants to drastically change the way America operates. Among his list of priorities is: one world government, open borders, drug legalization, abortion on demand, closing down Gitmo, ending enhanced interrogations and warrantless wiretapping, giving terrorists civil rights of a criminal, a strong central government that borders on socialism, and euthanasia (that is all I can think of but hopefully you get the idea).

He has become a power player in the Democratic Party however, through his vast network of attack groups, he has been able to limit his profile up until now. He may have over played his hand though because now several of his groups are in the spotlight at the same time, and the blogosphere has begun to notice. Still, I believe Soros will live to regret the day that he decided to take on O'Reilly, and while the blogosphere will help drive this story, in the end, I believe it will end up being O'Reilly himself that will finally expose Soros to America.

Here is his latest TPM on Soros

The real story behind the MoveOn smear attack on General Petraeus is
far
left financier George Soros. He has given millions to MoveOn and other
Internet
sites that smear conservatives and traditionalists.

If you
want to know the full extent of Soros' intrusion into the political
process,
read Investors Business Daily's editorial today. Go to their Web site.
It is
downright frightening.

Now the far left billionaire has bought
politicians, journalists, an
Internet character assassins. He wields
tremendous power in this country. So
much power that 24 Democratic senators
were afraid to condemn MoveOn for its
outrageous attack on General Petraeus.
Those senators
include Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and
Harry Reid.
Again, those senators would not vote to condemn the MoveOn ad.

...

Well, when an irresponsible far left outfit succeeds in
frightening a
quarter of the Senate, you know there's big trouble in this
country. Not only
that, some loons are even supporting the attack on
Petraeus.

Elements at NBC News, for example, who parrot far left
propaganda
incessantly, insist the ad is a legitimate form of dissent.

The New York Times is happy to discount the ad more than 60 percent for
MoveOn, as we've reported. And if you read the far left blogs, they're
thrilled
that General Petraeus was smeared.
All those people, of course,
are
disgraceful. Even if you disagree with the Iraq war, a general decorated
for
valor fighting on a vicious battle field does not deserve to be smeared
by
anyone.

The Democratic talking points say that the MoveOn
situation is an attempt
by people to divert attention away from Iraq. Well,
that's false. Most Americans
do not support the war. And that's fine, but
they do support the troops in the
field. That is called loyalty.

George Soros and his far left puppets are anti-military. They believe
our
forces are oppressors, corporate tools, instruments of evil. You heard
NBC News
commentator William Arkin say that. And it is implied in the pages
of liberal
newspapers every single day.

All of this makes George
Soros very happy. He is the real Wizard of Oz —
the man behind the curtain.
He has succeeded in terrorizing much of the
Democratic party.
George
Soros is trying to buy the presidential election of
2008. And he just might
do it.

Anatomy of an Assassination

I just read this piece and all I could think of was The Godfather. (For the two people in this world who have not seen the Godfather I am about to reveal a crucial plot point) It was the part where Michael is betrayed by his bodyguard but his wife is in the car when it blows up. Here is the inside story of the assassination of Abu Risha, leader of the Anbar Salvation Front

He said that al-Barghouti had been in debt to some people in the car
smuggling racket in Mosul who were affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The
men in the car smuggling racket had a deal with AQI: the terror group would
allow them to operate, guaranteeing their security, and in return they would
pass information to AQI about who was in debt to them. The men in the smuggling
racket passed on information about al-Barghouti's debt, and AQI told them to
pressure on him to repay the debt immediately -- something he was unable to
do.

This put al-Barghouti in a no-win situation. He couldn't go to the
authorities because doing so would have exposed his corruption and illegal
activities. Then AQI approached him to offer a way out: they would repay his
debt in exchange for al-Barghouti admitting al-Rishawi's assassin to the
compound, and not asking too many questions while he was on the way in. In this
way, AQI created problems for al-Barghouti in order to proffer the
solution.

The more you read about Al Qaeda the more you realize that in many ways these guys operate no different than the average mafjoso. Only they are more vicious, religious zealots, and if possible much more evil

Bringing Down Iran Another Follow Up

As I have mentioned over and over Iran is a regime ripe to fall with the right push. One of the pillars of pushing Iran into crumbling from within is for all peace loving Americans to support pro Democracy anti regime groups both within Iran and without. I was emailed recently two such groups.

I encourage everyone to visit their websites and make whatever donation you can afford. Any bloggers out there that believe as I do, that Iran is ready to fall, can take things one step further and include these groups in your blog roll.

Any fellow freedom fighters please email or link me other groups working toward the bringing down of the government of Iran

Daily Kos, Iran, and Middle East Media

In response to Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, there was this diary at Daily Kos Hat tip to Little Green Footballs

No wonder those that are beating the war drums against Iran didn't want Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak any place American might hear him. Thanks
to Columbia University and CPAN he was heard by many. He sounds entirely too
reasonable. Hearing his own word doesn't help the cause of demonizing him as a
madman and the most recent Hitler. This is someone we definitely should be
talking to. so in the interest of promoting peace and knowledge, I present these
short excerpts from his talk at Columbia University today.

Now, this is an opinion probably not even shared at most of the Daily Kos. The point here is not to find the most outrageous example of outlandish analysis of his speech here in the American media. This particular diary should remind us what the reaction to his speech will be and has been in the Middle East media. This is the sort of analysis you can find in the Middle East, courtesy of Al Jazeera

Iran hasn't given any hint about attacking anyone, unlike the U.S. & UK who
invaded countries that didn't threaten them.
Iran has not, I repeat NOT given
any hint or word about attacking anyone, unlike the U.S., Britain and their
allies who invaded countries that DID NOT threaten them.
The U.S. needs to
keep oil trade under U.S. dollars; the provocation for war is the American way
of securing its finances."

His audience is not and never has been anyone in the United States. By providing him a platform, Columbia provided him with an opportunity to propagandize in a presitigous American University for a Middle East audience.

I have no doubt that Bollinger, and the rest of the Columbia staff did what they thought was right, however they just don't understand who they are dealing with. If they think this was anything but a PR coup for Ahmadinejad they are fooling themselves, they fooled themselves frankly into believing that this would do anything but raise this guy's profile at the exact moment that he was starting to be quite isolated. Here is how I saw it

You have to understand who you are dealing with and Ahmadinejad is a sociopath. He is only going to manipulate this to his advantage the way he always manipulates everything. Does any really think it hurts his public standing that Bollinger questioned him on civil rights, the Holocaust, etc. He wasn't performing for our media or the Western media in general. He was performing for the Middle East media, and they won't spin it as being called out, but rather standing up to the mean, mean Americans and showing them who is boss. His standing in the Middle East just improved exponentially thanks to the useful idiot Lee Bollinger. In the larger scheme of things his appearance at Columbia is not going to change things in the Middle East in any substantial way. Ahmadinejad is not going to be able to ride this to any sort of long term PR success, however as Americans, we must do what is in the best interest of America not the terrorists. Inviting Ahmadinejad did not help America and it did help our enemy and frankly enough is enough.

California Lays down the Gauntlet to Iran

Governor Schwarzenegger is set to sign a bill that forbids any California pension plans from investing in companies that invest in Iran.
"

The bill, passed earlier this month by the California Legislature, would ban the
nation's two largest public pension funds _ the California Public Employees
Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System _ from investing in
companies that work on defense or nuclear projects or are involved in developing
Iranian petroleum or natural gas resources.
"I look forward to signing
legislation to divest from Iran to take an equally powerful stand against
terrorism," Schwarzenegger said in a statement Monday. The signing could come
this week, said spokesman Aaron McLear.
CalPERS estimated the ban would
require it to divest an estimated $2 billion from 10 companies."

As I wrote earlier, I believe that Iran is ripe to fall from within, peacefully, and one of my three pillars is to starve Iran of the economic investment that the country relies on. The state of California has laid down the gauntlet, either enjoy our money or Iran's. If I am the CEO of any company currently investing in Iran, the choice is simple. Furthermore, similary measures are passing through the legislatures of Florida, Michigan and Texas. It isn't enough. Investment in Iran is now a matter of national security. The group Divest Terror lists the dirty dozen, the twelve biggest companies currently investing in Iran.

The worst culprit, in my opinion, is BNP Paribas (this should sound familiar if you ever watch the French Open as they advertise prominently in the background of all the tennis courts at the French Open). They are in fact the only ex pat bank that currently has a branch in Tehran. Here is how the center describes their activities

In July 2002, BNP Paribas, along with Germany's Commerzbank AG, led Iran's first
sovereign Eurobond offering since the state's 1979 revolution. Originally
scheduled for Euro 500 million, high demand for the instruments led BNP Paribas
to increase the offering to a total of Euro 625 million. In December 2002,
a second offering of Euro 375 million, also led by BNP Paribas and Commerzbank,
brought the total raised on behalf of the Iranian government to over Euro 1
billion.1
The company also is involved in the financing of projects and
export facilities in Iran including an aromatics plant and a number of energy
and infrastructure-related deals. In total, the company is involved in
credit lines totaling more than $1 billion to increase Iranian trade and
development.2"

I am a free market, free trade, small government conservative, and so some have questioned how this fits into my view of the world. To me this is not an issue of economics but rather geopolitics and war. Investing in Iran is investing in blood money. As long as Iran kills our soldiers in Iraq, threatens Israel and the U.S., starts proxy wars in the Middle East, and develops nuclear weapons, they are our enemy in the GWOT. We do not provide financial assistance to our enemies in war time, and we do not provide financial assistance to any company that does either.

George Soros Is Trying to Buy the 2008 Election

This past weekend the blogosphere was abuzz with stories about the NY Times coming clean. For instance there is this one

After a slew of denials by apologists for the New York Times, the paper
itself acknowledged that it
gave MoveOn a discount for its full-page "Betray Us" ad. The standby rate
which the Times charged MoveOn applies to ads where the run date is not fixed --
and the ad specifically got sold for the Monday when General David Petraeus made
his first Congressional appearance:
The old gray lady has some explaining to
do.
Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group
was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad
condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.
The MoveOn ad, which cast
Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and attacked his truthfulness, ran on the same
day the commander made a highly anticipated appearance before Congress.

In their zeal to stick it to the hated NY Times, most of them missed the important part of this whole Betray US ad saga. That is George Soros and his quest to buy the election in 2008. Fortunately, Bill O'Reilly was on the case

The real story behind the MoveOn smear attack on General Petraeus is far left financier George Soros. He has given millions to MoveOn and other Internet sites that smear conservatives and traditionalists.

If you want to know the full extent of Soros' intrusion into the political process, read Investors Business Daily's editorial today. Go to their Web site. It is downright frightening.
Now the far left billionaire has bought politicians, journalists, an Internet character assassins. He wields tremendous power in this country. So much power that 24 Democratic senators were afraid to condemn MoveOn for its outrageous attack on General Petraeus. Those senators include Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and Harry Reid. Again, those senators would not vote to condemn the MoveOn ad...

Well, when an irresponsible far left outfit succeeds in frightening a quarter of the Senate, you know there's big trouble in this country. Not only that, some loons are even supporting the attack on Petraeus.

Elements at NBC News, for example, who parrot far left propaganda incessantly, insist the ad is a legitimate form of dissent.

The New York Times is happy to discount the ad more than 60 percent for MoveOn, as we've reported. And if you read the far left blogs, they're thrilled that General Petraeus was smeared.
All those people, of course, are disgraceful. Even if you disagree with the Iraq war, a general decorated for valor fighting on a vicious battle field does not deserve to be smeared by anyone.

The Democratic talking points say that the MoveOn situation is an attempt by people to divert attention away from Iraq. Well, that's false. Most Americans do not support the war. And that's fine, but they do support the troops in the field. That is called loyalty.

George Soros and his far left puppets are anti-military. They believe our forces are oppressors, corporate tools, instruments of evil. You heard NBC News commentator William Arkin say that. And it is implied in the pages of liberal newspapers every single day.

All of this makes George Soros very happy. He is the real Wizard of Oz — the man behind the curtain. He has succeeded in terrorizing much of the Democratic party.
George Soros is trying to buy the presidential election of 2008. And he just might do it.

George Soros is famous of course for becoming a billionaire by nearly bringing the British Pound down in the 1990's. He is now semi retired from investing and has set his sights on being a rainmaker in the far left circles of American politics. He is quite successful at it. He has a loosely knit network of organizations that he finances with his fingerprints being nearly untraceable. Here is how Bill O'Reilly first reported it.

Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things -- buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people with whom he disagrees.

Now, here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with me on this. Most of Soros' political money flows through his Open Society Institute -- you see it there on the left -- which is almost unlimited funding. Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has given nearly $20 million to the Tides Foundation -- right below that. An astounding amount.

Now, Tides, in turn, funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men, who are all well paid. For example, Tides has donated millions to the vile propaganda outfit Media Matters, which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people. Media Matters is an Internet site, but directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people, including elements at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and Paul Krugman at The New York Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at PBS.

In fact, as president of the Schumann Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at least a half-million-dollar transfer of money to Media Matters. We'll have more on that tomorrow.
Now, George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta, and the Democracy Alliance Group, both of which fund Media Matters as well. So you can see, an enormous amount of money this Media Matters has control of.

Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization MoveOn many, many millions of dollars. This group actively supports liberal politicians like [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting left-wing causes.

So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians running for office do what he tells them to do.
If a liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be denied funding and brutally attacked. Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman about what MoveOn and Media Matters did to him.

Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well.

The goal of George Soros, [Progressive Insurance chairman] Peter Lewis, [Esprit clothing company founder] Susie Tompkins Buell, and other radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. By that, I mean find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.

In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is the likes of George Soros, an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on.

My book Culture Warrior documents the Soros policy and his tax-evading businesses located in Curacao and Bermuda.

The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This is off-the-chart dangerous, but completely legal under the McCain-Feingold Act.

In the weeks to come, we'll have more on Soros and his operations, including naming more of the mainstream media that is actively helping him, which includes Rosie O'Donnell. And that is the "Memo."

As soon as he took them on, the sent out their attack dog Media Matters to fund a study about him

An Indiana University study finds that Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly
calls a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average,
or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program
each night.

How did such a high number of insults register in the study...well words like conservative, moderate, and liberal were considered insults. Frankly, O'Reilly is not the issue. The issue is Soros and his loose knit web presence attack dogs. He has the money and the power to buy the election, and that is why none of the Democrats running for President would condemn the ad, because if they did, he would follow in his modis operandi. His MO is to send out his attack dogs and inundate anyone that got in his way with a plethora of personal attacks until that individual called no mas, just ask Joe Lieberman and Brian Baird. The minute these two traditionally liberal legislators dared go against the far left line on Iraq, the attack dogs controlled by Soros laid into the incessently. Most of the major Democratic candidates have so far not shown the courage necessary to stand up to Soros and once elected expect them to toe the line or get attacked viciously.

The real story in the Betray Us fiasco is in fact the George Soros money machine and how they have taken the Democratic Party hostage with their money, resources, and most importantly with the extortion they perform with the threat of nonstop personal attacks.

Update:

Looks like this story is starting to travel around the blogosphere. Power Line picked it up yesterday...

Investors Business Daily shines
some sunlight on George Soros's secret promotion of unworthy causes through
the inaptly named Open Society Institute. (The editorial is one in a series on
Soros and MoveOn.org that IBD compiles here.) IBD criticizes the lag
between OSI's financial support and the disclosure of the support:

Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's
a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets
the public know about it after it's old news.
That means the public makes
decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups
behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads
to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows
to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society."
His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public
shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped
on about the Open Society's political action.

My new home

Please catch me over at www.win-the-war.com as I am a new editor at that site. Win The War is dedicated to victory in Iraq and you will find a host of articles and other materials not found elsewhere regarding our struggle in Iraq and in the Middle East in general.

Mahmoud: From the Left and Right

The blogosphere is ablaze regarding Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia. I wrote about it here on Friday. From the right, we havenear universal condemnation

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our
commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we
believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of
view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic
discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad
has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are
true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a
repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the
Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply
regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to
his views.

The view from the far left is a whole different

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly.
Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks
like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s
not all…

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about
Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks,
denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear
power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I
can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the
Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy
preceding.
Recall that, back in May, Ahmadinejad sent a letter
to President Bush:

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable
contradictions that exist… Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon
Him), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human
rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make "War on Terror" his slogan,

And finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international
community --- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one
day govern,
But at the same time,

Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people
destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a
village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set
ablaze.

It’s a great question, which I’ve wondered myself. He goes
on:

Because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is
occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and
industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity
of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50
years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of
one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and
women --- as occupation troops --- put in harms way, taken away from family and
loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning
home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments;
while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
Ahmadinejad, it would appear, cares more about American troops than
President Bush.

What is really obscene is that this last quote comes from a self described Jewish lesbian. She acknowledges many of his evil deeds though that doesn't seem to stop her from having a crush on him, despite him being evil, wanting to kill all Jews, and of course besides him being the wrong sex. Of course, Bush Derangement Syndrome takes on a new level when a lesbian finds a man attractive simply because that mean, a sociopathic and murderous tyrant, also hates Bush as much as she does.

As for condemnation of his very appearance at Columbia, we have yet to see that. Again, I note that the Daily Kos invited all of the Democratic Presidential candidates to a debate and all but Joseph Biden gladly accepted. I hope that is kept in mind when we are all choosing our Presidential candidate.

Winning and Losing: Both Here and in Iraq

Michael Totten has published his latest piece from Iraq. It shows both the successes and the complexities of the situation there. I am really impressed by how well our troops now understand the complexities of the society over there...

“Do you think your friendship with the locals is genuine?” I asked
Lieutenant Colonel Silverman. Ramadi is in the heart of Iraq’s Sunni Triangle,
the most anti-American region in all of Iraq. I had seen what appeared to be
genuine friendship and warmth from the Iraqis I’d met, but it was impossible to
tell from anecdotal experience if that sentiment was typical in Anbar Province
or even real.

“I do,” he said. “Don’t just assume Iraqis are faking their friendship. The
first time I was here in 2003 I made friends with locals in Salah a Din
Province. They still email and call me to talk even though they know there is
nothing I can do for them now that I’m out here in Ramadi. Some of the people we
work with just want to make money. For them it’s all business and has nothing to
do with their private opinions of us. But most really do want to make Iraq
better. You can tell when you interact with people one-on-one if they’re
sincere. You can see right through people who are insincere. Many of these guys
have been in fire fights with us, so I know they’re on our side.”

it continues...

“The average Iraqi post-Fallujah was not very happy with us being here,” he
said. “If the insurgency only attacked Americans, the people of Ramadi would not
have been very upset. But Al Qaeda infiltrated and took over the insurgency.
They massively overplayed their hand. They cut off citizens’ heads with kitchen
knives. The locals slowly learned that the propaganda about us were lies, and
that Al Qaeda was their real enemy. They figured out by having dinner and tea
with us that we really are, honest to God, here to help them.”

Anbar
Province as a whole isn’t completely secured yet. But most areas have been
cleared, and it’s increasingly difficult for terrorists and insurgents to even
show up in the province let alone find refuge there.

“Anbar Province all
along the Euphrates used to be one huge rat line for getting terrorists into
Baghdad from Syria,” he said. A rat line, in military speak, is an enemy
logistics route. “That’s over.”

“Do you think what happened here can
happen in Baghdad?” I said.
He sat motionless for a time and considered
carefully what I had asked him. It was obvious by the look on his face that he
wasn’t particularly optimistic about it.

“I don’t know,” he finally
said. “One advantage we had here was that the tribes are like small communities,
like in rural America. The sheikhs are politically powerful. If we turn them, we
turn the people. Urban areas erode tribal affiliation. It’s still there in
Baghdad, but it’s weaker. So I don’t know. It did work in the urban parts of
Ramadi, though. If we can get it to work in all the provinces in Iraq – and it
is working in Diyala Province right now, I know it is – then maybe it can work
in Baghdad. It’s hard to say.”

He’s right that the formula works in
Diyala Province, and in Salah a Din Province as well. Both provinces, like
Anbar, are made up mostly of Sunni Arabs and have had similar troubles with Al
Qaeda in Iraq. Even some tribes in the Shia South are beginning to emulate the
Anbar model and work with the Americans against Shia militias.

At this point, it is beyond arguement that our administration went into Iraq without even the basic knowledge of the complexities of the relationships in their country and complexities of the relationship in their society, however reading any interview with any military person that is no longer the case. Their society structure is now being used in our favor. In other words, our troops now know how to win Iraq.

Then, there is this article from J.C. Watts

I once heard a fellow say, "If you don't believe it, it's not because there's
not enough evidence for you to believe it."

As in so many circumstances
in politics, this pearl of wisdom applies to the war in Iraq. Democrat
leadership keeps saying they don't and won't believe that we're having success
in Iraq, but it's not because things aren't going favorably for the good guys.

Such is the case with the Democrat leadership on all matters Iraq. Maybe
it's just me, but I'm thinking the Democrats have invested a lot in seeing the
United States not win in Iraq. So many have invested politically in our
non-success that they don't want to hear truth and they ignore evidence.
Conversely, Republicans were so politically invested in winning that we ignored
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's failed war policies early on.

For
evidence of this failed investment, one needs to look no further than their
local headlines before Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress. Talk about
a rush to pre-judgment.
"Democrats Already Discrediting Upcoming Petraeus
Report," bannered an ABCNews.com story. Leaving any doubt that Sen. Harry Reid
knows the heart and mind of one of the most respected military leaders our
country has produced, the majority leader proclaimed, "(Petraeus' report) will
pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or
twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked."

As if that weren't
conclusive enough, Reid impugned the general's integrity with this gem: "He has
made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual."
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois came out with this whopper. "Even if the
figures are right, the conclusion is wrong."

And, perhaps my favorite of
all, wanna-be president Sen. Joe Biden -- a self-proclaimed civilian expert on
foreign affairs -- had the impudence the week before his testimony to declare
Petraeus is "flat, dead wrong."

Frankly, I agree with those who believe
the execution of the war under Rumsfeld was abysmal. Sen. John McCain and others
were correct when they said at the outset of the war that we didn't have enough
troops in play. We now have employed a strategy devised by those on the ground,
using reasonable and objective standards, who say we can win this thing if we
just show some resolve.

The Democrats constantly referred to Iraq policy
as a failed policy, and called for a new strategy.

But when the
president and his new team devised the "surge" strategy early this year,
Democrats acted like a 6-year old who didn't get the video game he wanted for
Christmas. After much counsel and debate, the president and his team recommended
more boots on the ground.
More troops allowed the Syrian and Iranian borders
to be more secure, and kept out more of the agitators.

It also allowed a
ring around Baghdad to keep the bad guys out, letting the good guys, led by the
Iraqis and reinforced by U.S. troops, go door to door, flushing out insurgents.
This new strategy worked to create tangible results and is trending this brutal
war in the right direction.
Predictably, the president's move to draw down
troops over the coming months isn't enough for the naysayers.

Some
months ago, the Senate voted unanimously for Petraeus to take on the job of
executing the new strategy in Iraq. Why? Because Petraeus, by all accounts, is a
stand-up guy.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, called the general "America's finest." MoveOn.org called him "General
Betray Us."

McCain called him the most impressive man he'd seen in
action in a long time. Allies of the Democrats call him a war criminal.

The facts and evidence in the general's testimony were supportive of the
new strategy. The military objectives of the surge are being met. Violence is
declining. Petraeus will withdraw a brigade of combat troops in mid-December,
followed by reduction in more troops over the first half of 2008.

Today,
locals are working with the U.S. military. Many who were enemies are now our
allies. We're trending in the right direction.

Fact is, if you're going
to invest in the failure of this effort in Iraq, enough is never going to be
enough. It's unfortunate but it's where we are.

No insult toward a
soldier is more injurious than to be accused of betraying his country. Petraeus
accepted one of the toughest assignments in our nation's history, and is
investing his life to keep us safe at home.

The way Petraeus has been
treated by anti-war zealots is testament to how even good soldiers will be
treated if they don't accept the losing, anti-war line.

It would not
just be a shame, but a tragedy if we all gave up, just when we found a strategy
for success. The anti war movement is known to say that we have tried many new
strategies, and we have. Lincoln went through four generals before settling on
US Grant. Had the anti war folks succeeded with that arguement America would
look quite different today. It is never too late to find the right strategy, and
this situation is too important to write it off as hopeless because you have
found defeat convenient or politically advantageous.

Before anyone pulls our troops out, we all must ask then what...

Brian Baird Finds a New Friend

I don't know if Congressman Brian Baird is a fan of the Grateful Dead however he must feel that the lyric "what a long strange trip its been" must sum up the last month and a half of his life quite nicely. For years he was a fairly obscure, fairly safe, fairly down the line liberal Congressman for the Seattle suburbs. He voted against the Iraq war initially in 2002 and continued to maintain his opposition throughout. Then, in August, he took a visit to Iraq, and what he saw there must have made in impression.
He came back and wrote this article...

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the
history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a
precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn
the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks
possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been
frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am
convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change
substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our
diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most
importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued
support and more time to succeed.

I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in
Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been
horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If
we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend
billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region,
there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be
absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened
and angry that we are where we are."...

Instantly, he went from being obscure liberal Congressman to hero of the pro war effort and scourge of the far left. In the immediate aftermath of this article immediately he was excoriated by his constituency
"

Baird took this unpopular message to a packed Vancouver high-school
auditorium on Monday night, August 27, during one of his regular town meetings.
(He's done 220 so far.)
Baird said that the war was authorized through our
democratic system, and that we now have

"a moral responsibility... not to leave [the Iraqi people] at the mercy of
people who cut off people's heads and bomb schools because girls go there.... Al
Qaeda was not a problem in Iraq before the invasion. Iran was not a problem in
Iraq before the invasion. I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that. But
they are a problem now. They're a problem for Iraqis. The choice has become: Do
we stay a little bit longer"—to which audience members shouted out a sharp round
of "No!"—"because there is some chance that in so doing we will help Iraq have a
more safe society and become more stable? If we withdraw now, I am confident it
will be catastrophic."

The crowd inside Fort Vancouver High School—easily 500 people, with others
turned away for lack of space—was hostile and loud: booing; shouting "Troops out
now!"; and holding up signs saying things like, "Be a Man for the People" and
"Only a Corrupt Congress Is for War-Making." Activists stood outside telling
people to call Baird's office in the morning and ask for his
resignation."

One constituent said it best, "We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

After hearing it from the crowd, a whole host of the usual suspects began attacking him in the media and on the internet...

A week and a half ago, the term 'Bush Dog Democrat' did not exist. Today,
there are just under nine hundred results when you search for "Bush
Dog Democrats". Left in
Alabama, Calitics, Booman, Howie
Klein, MN
Campaign Report, Archpundit, and
the Side
Track have all profiled or helped to profile members. We've had positive
profiles of Tim Walz, aggressive criticisms of Collin Peterson, and an analysis
of the geographical distribution of the Bush Dogs from noted political scientist Tom
Schaller.

The campaign was covered in USA Today, on Fox News, the Politico, and
in the
New York Observer. Anonymous Democratic strategists are attacking me with
the straw man argument that criticism will jeopardize Democratic seats, wingnuts
are flipping out, and some local Democrats are very very
angry. I've heard of possible primary challenges in several districts where
Bush Dog Democrats are in power.
It's really amazing what a little criticism
from a few of us can do."...

Do I mean that Baird has gone irretrievably
over to the dark side when I say that? No. I mean that Baird has discovered
what, for Lieberman, proved to be the "gateway drug" -- media stardom for being
the Democrat who will go on record to provide the coveted Dems DividedTM
storyline.

Best reaction to this so far?

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., told Congressional Quarterly: "I'll give Brian a
gun and let him go to Iraq and shoot whoever he wants."

Unfortunately, it seems Baird's been aiming squarely at Democratic feet. And
loving it."

The far left has set their sights on Baird and are making it priority one to defeat him in the primaries. Moveon.org has already spent $20K in his district, peanuts, and they will spend much more if necessary. Not toeing their line is inexcusable and they will give him the Lieberman treatment. Baird and others like him have already been labeled with a new far left term, Bush Democrats.

The thing about political courage is that it is almost always not productive. The people you tick off, your constituency, almost never forgive you or appreciate your courage, and your new allies aren't really allies but merely allies of convenience and they will dump you the minute you take a stand counter to them. Despite what we all claim, what most of us really want is an exact replica of ourselves not a person of principle.

Still, I was heartened to find this article recognizing his principle and courage...

It was painful watching U.S. Rep. Brian Baird defend himself against
disgruntled supporters at an Aug. 27 town hall meeting. I caught the spectacle -
which came just short of a public flogging - on television. The crowd gathered
at Fort Vancouver High School didn't want so much to hear why the charismatic
Democrat is supporting continued troop strength in Iraq, but to tell him he is
wrong. Unelectable wrong. Dead-in-the-political-waters wrong.
Go-find-new-sign-wavers wrong. And Baird, though trying to be gracious, clearly
got a bit peeved.

I don't blame him. Most questions from the audience started as comments.
Several people mentioned their past support for the representative before
launching into tired statements about the situation in Iraq, which received
reliable applause from fellow sheep. Some people said they felt betrayed by the
congressman.

When Baird tried to explain that a recent visit to Iraq, faith in current
commanders and private discussions with Iraqi, Iranian and Jordanian leaders
changed his position on withdrawal, it was as if he were holding an "I love
Bush" sign. People were booing, laughing and eye-rolling. Baird pleaded for
understanding or patience, only to be met with scowls and scoffs. With friends
like that, who needs Republicans?

As recently as May, Baird supported a troop withdrawal bill. But a funny
thing sometimes happens when you do first-hand research on an issue everyone
else is Monday-morning quarterbacking: Your perspective can change. Right or
wrong, good for Baird for being honest about his views and willing to take some
heavy hits and possible political payback.

Baird remains critical of the Iraq invasion. That hasn't changed. He still
believes the Bush administration erred in starting the war. But he believes it
would be dangerous to pull out of Iraq right now. He says his support of the
Bush administration's troop surge is driven by a moral responsibility to the
Iraqi people and his hope that soldiers will be able to stabilize the country if
allowed to stay longer under the command of Army Gen. David
Petraeus.
Independent thought discouraged

But as Baird is finding out, any agreement with Bush is seen as blasphemy.
Any independent thought outside of the Democratic Party preference on Iraq is
unacceptable. More than peeved that night, Baird looked hurt. I hope he was able
to maintain the perspective he had before the meeting in Southwest Washington
began. He told reporters before the town hall, "Somebody said to me, 'Oh man,
you're going to get killed tonight.' I said, 'No, they get killed in Iraq. I'm
going to get criticized.' "

Perhaps more disturbing than the audience members' rude behavior and
mistreatment of Baird was their belief that they owned the congressman and his
views because they once waved a Baird sign, hosted a fundraiser, donated to the
congressman's campaign or wore a button. People in attendance seemed to suggest
Baird was their representative, and as such, he had to do what they said and
thought he should do.

That's amusing. When George W. Bush became president of a divided nation
(twice), Democrats demanded that he reach out. They said he had to become a
uniter, not a divider. After all, they argued, Bush was representing all
Americans now, not just the ones who voted for him. His ideas and attitudes
should reflect that, they said.

Baird represents all Southwest Washingtonians, those who voted for him,
those who voted against him and those who didn't vote at all. When you consider
that wide swath of people, Baird might be on track with what this community
believes about Iraq. Then again, maybe not. Either way, Baird is not a robot. No
politician should be. We can't expect to put up a yard sign and vote and then,
if our candidate wins, expect him or her to vote the way we would every time on
every issue. We need to elect people we believe have the best chance of being
honest, hard-working, informed and inquisitive, and who will vote our way more
often than the other guy (or gal). That's what it's about, isn't it? By this
measure, Baird supporters should feel confident they voted for the right
man.

When it comes to his record on Iraq, Baird hasn't betrayed anyone - not
even his conscience. That's not something to get angry about, that's something
to admire."

By the way, anyone that recognizes his courage and principle please visit his office here