Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Military Readiness, Patriotism

Clarity on Rush

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:10:00 EDT

Over at Townhall.com, IWF's Carrie Lukas fights off charges from Media Matters and delves further into the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh. Carrie lays out a detailed timeline of what was (and was not) said and includes transcripts, videos, and other primary sources to provide clarity to the situation. Check out the article here.

More on Rush

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:34:00 EDT

IWF's Carrie Lukas has more on the recent attacks on Rush:

"If we are in the business of assigning motives, let's speculate about the Democrats' motives for smearing to tar Rush. A few weeks ago Moveon.org ran a tasteless ad smearing a military general for "betraying" the country. The leaders of Democrats were uncomfortably silent about this attack on a public servant and soldier. Democrats have also just had the disappointing task of acknowledging that the American war effort is going better than they expected. Their push for an immediate pullout of Iraq has been stalled. Tarring Rush Limbaugh as anti-American soldier helps with both problems: it satisfies their base, who has been disappointed with Congress's inability to exit Iraq, and gives them an opportunity to say that they support the military in spite of the attacks on General Patraeus.

"It's politics at its worst. The media has taken the Democrats' bait and are covering this as a controversy, as if there is a question about the validity of the Democrats' charges. There is no question. The facts are clear.

"Certainly someone needs to apologize-but it isn't Rush Limbaugh."

FOX News Live: The Left Attempts to Smear Rush

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:44:00 EDT

Carrie Lukas joined FOX News Live to discuss the recent controversy over Rush Limbaugh and "phony soldiers."

Do the Facts Matter When the Subject Is Rush Limbaugh?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:24:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com

A frustrating part of political discourse is the inability of both sides to agree on the facts. The effects of a new tax policy on the economy or the costs of a potential government program are often in dispute. But in the current dust-up about Rush Limbaugh's so-called "phony soldier" comments, there cannot be a dispute about the facts. There is a transcript.

The transcript shows to whom Rush was referring when the phony solider comment was made. The conversation began with a caller complaining that the media never talks to "real soldiers" to which Rush says "The phony soldiers." Moments later, he moves on to an example of a phony soldier-"Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth"-who had claimed to witness atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq. It turns out Jesse MacBeth wasn't an Army Ranger at all. As Rush described:

In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.

Surely it isn't out of bounds to describe someone who lied about his service a "phony soldier."

Few people who hear the clip from Rush's show in the media get to the part about Jesse MacBeth. They only hear the first short exchange between Rush and the caller. The caller says: "No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media." And Rush responds "The phony soldiers."

Who is Rush referring to here? Arguably, it isn't clear. It is clarified later when Rush discusses Jesse MacBeth, but even if you takes this clip in isolation, it is a gigantic leap to assume that Rush is referring to "our men and women in uniform who oppose the war," as Senator Harry Reid has chosen to assume. The caller wasn't talking about soldiers who oppose the war and Rush didn't continue to talk about those who oppose the war, only to those who lie about their military service.

Yet the Democrats have used this exchange in an attempt to manufacture a scandal. Senator Reid is collecting signatures to urge Rush to apologize to the soldiers (for something he did not say). Senator Harkin in a speech on the Senator floor, not only accuse Rush of tarring soldiers in uniform, but assigns Rush the motive of greed: "Now what's most despicable is that Mr. Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers, this makes more news, more people tune in, he makes more money." For good measure Senator Harkin speculates that Rush might be "high on his drugs again."

It is breathtakingly irresponsible behavior for a Senator to attack a private citizen like this on the Senate floor.

If we are in the business of assigning motives, let's speculate about the Democrats' motives for smearing to tar Rush. A few weeks ago Moveon.org ran a tasteless ad smearing a military general for "betraying" the country. The leaders of Democrats were uncomfortably silent about this attack on a public servant and soldier. Democrats have also just had the disappointing task of acknowledging that the American war effort is going better than they expected. Their push for an immediate pullout of Iraq has been stalled. Tarring Rush Limbaugh as anti-American soldier helps with both problems: it satisfies their base, who has been disappointed with Congress's inability to exit Iraq, and gives them an opportunity to say that they support the military in spite of the attacks on General Patraeus.

It's politics at its worst. The media has taken the Democrats' bait and are covering this as a controversy, as if there is a question about the validity of the Democrats' charges. There is no question. The facts are clear.

Certainly someone needs to apologize-but it isn't Rush Limbaugh.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Rule Britannia, Britannia Waives the Rules!

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:44:00 EDT

It comes as no surprise that much of the mainstream press fails to see how devastating to the West was Tehran's latest adventure. Mark Steyn, however, is under no illusions:

"The Associated Press reported the story as follows: 'Analysis: Hope For More Iran Compromises.'

"Well, if by 'compromise' you mean Tehran didn't put them up for a show trial and behead them, you might have a point. With this encouraging development, we might persuade them to wipe only half of Israel off the map, or even nuke some sparsely occupied corner of the Yukon instead. With the momentum of this 'compromise' driving events, all manner of diplomatic triumphs are possible.

"Tony Blair was at pains to point out that the hostages were released 'without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature.' But he's missing (or artfully sidestepping) the point: Tehran didn't want a deal. It wanted the humbling of the Great Satan's principal ally. And it got it. Very easily. And it paid no price for it. And it has tested in useful ways the empty pretensions of the U.N., the EU and also NATO, whose second largest fleet is now a laughingstock in a part of the world where it helps to be taken seriously."

As Steyn points out, in terms of power, the Brits still have it - in a way - but they are no longer willing to use it:

"The most noticeable feature of the last two weeks has been the massive shrug by the British public. Some observers attributed this to the unpopularity of the Iraq war: Those nice mullahs wouldn't be pulling this stuff if Blair hadn't got mixed up with that crazy Texas moron. But it seems to me a more profound malaise has gripped them -- the enervating fatalism of too many people in what is still a semi-serious nation with one of the world's biggest militaries up against an insignificant basket-case. The traditional British position was deftly summed up in the chorus of an old music-hall song:

"We don't want to fight but, by jingo, if we do

We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too . . ."

"Or, to modify Elvis, they weren't looking for trouble but, if you looked right in their face, they'd give you some. In theory, they still have the ships, the men and the money, but something intangible has been lost. "Jingoism" is not merely a mindless swagger but a kind of assumed national confidence of which the fleet and the sailors and the cash are merely the tangible embodiment. Take away the confidence, and the ships and men and money avail you nought. You want a diplomatic solution? Fine. But, if you believe (as Europe and half America does) in 'soft power,' it's important to remember it depends on the world's belief that you're willing to use that power. Looking at the reaction to this incident by the United States, European Union, United Nations et al., Iran will conclude that the transnational consensus will never muster the will to constrain its nuclear ambitions."

Do we need more Spartan values?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:51:00 EDT

What is it with numerology and politically incorrect shows?

First, there was "24," the Fox show in which Kiefer Sutherland as agent Jack Bauer does unspeakable things to the bad guys, and now there is "300," in which three hundred Spartans take on thousands upon thousands of degenerate Persians in the battle of Thermopylae. I’m delighted to report that "300" has been "slaying them" at the box office.

I'm afraid that the movie was too much for the usually macho Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter:

"The theory of Spartan greatness argues that the Spartans bought time with blood, and allowed the other Greek city-state armies to slip away and fight another day and eventually triumph. Thus this frail bloom we call Western civilization continued to survive in the rocky Attic soil. And thus we speak English, not Farsi, and trace our government back to a neighbor of Sparta's. The argument also dramatizes a continuing reality in democratic societies that, while it's nice to have Athenians around to invent government and theater and the sandal, every once in a while it's necessary to dig up some Spartans to get in real close and bayonet the bad guys right smack in the guts.

"'300,' alas and to its shame, makes no argument at all. It's entirely an overblown visual document with an IQ in the lower 20s. It doesn't even bother to mention the strategic context of the Battle of Thermopylae or to follow the story through to its end at Salamis, where the Athenians sent the Persian minions to meet Mr. Jones at the bottom of the Aegean, and drove the Persian Big Boy Xerxes back to his harem where he ultimately perished on an intriguer's knife. Meanwhile, the Greeks went on to invent the rest of history.

"Instead, we get a Spartan culture that seems notable primarily for one thing: the invention of the ab machine."

Well, I thought it was a terrific movie. It was, as Hunter noted in the review, "showy and stylized." The wolf the young Leonidas slays has yellow eyes. There is a narrator with a rather bombastic style. But it was a ripping good tale. It's unusual for Mr. Hunter not to like a war movie, and may I suggest some reasons (in addition to the movie's style) I think "300" might have failed to win his approval:

The movie is, as Hunter notes, a glorification of Sparta, the militaristic Greek town whose warlike ethos is often contrasted with Athens' more philosophical bent. Remember reading in school about the Spartan boy who died because a fox ate his entrails but he was too - well - Spartan to complain? Most of us grew up favoring Athens. But this movie makes a good point for Spartan values as occasionally necessary to preserve freedom. The Athenians in the movie, unfairly I think, are portrayed as wimps. The Spartans are the heroes - this is partly old-fashioned adventure and partly a commentary on what it took to have The Right Stuff in ancient Greece.

The parallels with our own situation vis a vis an Eastern foe are inescapable. Leonidas clearly perceives that, if the Greeks don't win, their civilization will be destroyed. He sees the battle with the Persians as the existential struggle it was. Okay, I did start thinking of Leonidas as a sort of George Bush figure - right down to the council, which is trying to avoid war with Persia at all costs. Leonidas goes to Thermopylae with only 300 men because the Democrats - oops! - Solons won't give him the army he needs. The Eastern foe, Xerxes, is different from the one we face - this is sort of an LGBT Xerxes - but just as determined to destroy the West.

Of course, the great thing about the saga is the heroism and sacrifice (which, in the end, did trigger the council to approve a surge- hope we are as lucky).

Words, Words, Words...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:22:00 EST

It has been infuriating to watch the Senate's debate over the Iraq resolutions as if they meant something. For heaven's sake -- they are nonbinding. They are all about positioning, and the media helps the craven senators position themselves. Charles Krauthammer blows the whistle today:

"Words. The Democrats are all in favor of 'redeployment' and pretend that this is an alternative plan. But the word redeployment is meaningless. It simply means changing the position of our soldiers and, implicitly, changing their mission. Unless you're saying where you're redeploying to, and with what mission, you've said nothing. It's a statement of opposition, yet another expression of disapproval of the current strategy -- much like an empty, nonbinding congressional resolution -- until you say whether you want to redeploy to Kansas or Kurdistan.

"Words. Consider 'surge.' It carries an air of energy, aggression and even hope. That, in fact, is a fairly good reflection of Petraeus's view of it -- not just more troops but a change in the rules of engagement, with more latitude to fight, less political interference by the Iraqi government and a much tougher attitude toward foreign, especially Iranian, agents in Iraq.

"The opposition prefers 'escalation,' as featured, for example, in the anti-surge commercial that aired in certain markets during the Super Bowl. The main reason for using escalation, of course, is that it is a Vietnam word. And the more Vietnam words you can use in discussing Iraq, the more you've won the debate without having to make an argument.

"The problem with this battle over words is that it is entirely irrelevant to what is happening in Iraq. There will be real troops on real missions regardless of what label they are given. The country is engaged in a serious debate about exactly what strategy to pursue to either prosecute the war or withdraw in an orderly fashion. The Senate might consider putting such a debate on its agenda."

Warner: PTS or False Memory Syndrome?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:10:00 EST

Resolution-offering Senator John Warner, former secretary of the Navy, is haunted by memories of Vietnam. Suddenly. Bill Kristol writes:

"'I regret that I was not more outspoken' during the Vietnam War, the former Navy secretary said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. 'The Army generals would come in, 'Just send in another five or ten thousand.' You know, month after month. Another ten or fifteen thousand. They thought they could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn't work.'

"In fact, John Warner was Richard Nixon's undersecretary of the Navy from 1969 to 1972, then Navy secretary until 1974. No admiral (or Army general) showed up in either his undersecretarial or secretarial office in those years to urge more troops for Vietnam -- because we were then drawing down as part of Vietnamization. So Warner would seem to be making up these conversations with foolishly optimistic Army generals -- unless they visited him before 1969 in his office at the law firm of Hogan and Hartson, where he was ensconced during the period of the Vietnam buildup."

Washington Post Blogger: U.S. soldiers are mercenaries...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:45:00 EST

The former Democratic nominee for the presidency may think our soldiers are dumb clucks who got stuck in the military because they don't have no education. That's a compliment compared to what Washington Post blogger William Arkin says about our soldiers:

"So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

"I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

"But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work."

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Have you ever heard of H. R. McMasters?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:57:00 EST

In today's Washington Post Fred Hiatt laments "the vanishing foreign correspondent:"

"Maybe the old model just can't work anymore. Though The Washington Post has managed to maintain its stable of 20-plus foreign correspondents, no newspaper, including The Post, is insulated from the pressure of Internet competition for advertising dollars. Nor are the television networks, which have cut way back on their foreign bureaus as well.

"Yet in an era when clan structures in Somalia or separatist movements in the Philippines may have a direct bearing on U.S. national security -- when the people who run multinational companies such as GE regularly complain that Americans don't understand the world -- we should all worry about who, if anyone, will report from abroad."

I'd agree wholeheartedly -- except that I don't think foreign correspondents nowadays are telling us much about what they cover. I attended a talk at AEI on Iraq, and in the course of the event, the name H. R. McMasters, a general in the army, came up. Apparently, he's done a great job in Iraq.

Never heard of the guy. Read the papers every day, and never saw a thing about H. R. I had no idea that any general was succeeding at anything in Iraq. Maybe H. R. is so busy generaling that he not giving enough press conferences.

Mommie Boxer...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:50:00 EST

Maverick liberal Mickey Kaus probes the Democrats mommie meme, most recently reflected in Barbara Boxer's attack on Condoleezza Rice as a childless woman who therefore is not entitled to an opinion on Iraq:

"The 'it's all about children' meme must focus-group really well, because Democrats keep trotting it out (most famously to justify welfare payments for 'children,' even though it's adults who get the checks). I don't remember Mommyism winning any national elections, though--especially during a war.

"Boxer also managed to leave the implication that if only her children were of the right age, they would of course be volunteering to serve their country in the military. I don't know Boxer's children, but I'm skeptical."

More like a B+

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:43:00 EST

I'll give Bush a little higher marks than Charlotte is willing to dole out. I think the most important thing Bush did had nothing to do with unveiling a plan (which people like Charlotte perhaps thought he didn't unveil enough of) and had everything to do with this paragraph:

"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

I agree with National Review Online's editorial that if he would have admitted that if he had said that earlier "his credibility with the American public might not be at its current low ebb." Last night's speech was a vast departure from the "stay the course" rhetoric that has become far too common. Last night seemed more genuine.

As for Charlotte's concern that Bush didn't explain that the changes in Iraq are a fundamental strategic shift rather than simple increase in numbers, I'd have to disagree. Bush did his best to explain the challenges we currently face, what we are changing to address these challenges, and why the new strategy is different from past strategies that weren’t working. He also did a great job of reinforcing the consequences of failure in this paragraph:

"The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."

Will the American public jump on board? Will Maliki live up to his commitments? We can't be sure. But, NRO shows the important difference between skepticism and the anti-"escalation" crowd (like the folks outside our building earlier this week):

"It is one thing to have a healthy skepticism of the effect the president's latest push will have, and another to oppose it without either offering any plausible alternative or pushing all-out for a withdrawal. That is the position of many Democrats and the odd Republican, including the GOP presidential aspirant Sam Brownback. They all pretend that conditions in Iraq can be improved with the U.S. maintaining or even reducing its current level of effort. That is wishful thinking. The surge is the only realistic hope for checking Iraq's downward slide.

"More important than Bush's speech or any policy specifics is the big picture: He is still committed to winning in Iraq, he has identified population security as the key element of our strategy, and he is sending a talented counterinsurgency expert in the person of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to run the war. Presumably, Bush will give Petraeus whatever resources the general says he needs going forward, and Petraeus won't be as blinkered as his predecessors. It is important that Petraeus get to Iraq as soon as possible, and be in a position to begin implementing the plan and adjusting it as it bumps against realities on the ground."

It's an anti-war protest

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:51:00 EST

I was able to interview some protesters.

Podcast is forthcoming as soon as we get the file uploaded to the website.

Have a Very Merry Incorrect Christmas!

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Allen) — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:35:00 EST

And take a break from filling the wassail bowl with Rich Lowry's moving and throught-provoking account of Christmas at the Bulge, as related in Stanley Weintraub's new book "11 Days in December" (that was the horrible Yule of 1944, when our troops, having cracked German-occupied Europe on D-Day, had to fight their way to Germany day by grim day -- and did so with bravery and high spirits, under the leadership of America's toughest general, George S. Patton):

"The tale of the worst Christmas for American soldiers since Valley Forge, as Weintraub puts it, is especially resonant with American troops again in harm's way on Christmas, this time in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they call on the same resources of bravery and perseverance as their forebears.

"The Allied breakout from Normandy in the summer had convinced Gen. Dwight Eisenhower that the war with Germany would be over by Christmas, but as the Allied advance slowed, the Germans hatched a plan to counterattack through the Ardennes forest. They hoped to punch though the thin Allied lines there and surround four Allied armies. In Hitler's desperate delusion, the Allies in the West would be forced to come to terms. Behind the cover of the thick forest and the horrid weather, the Germans scored initial successes, creating the 'bulge' in the Allies' line.

"American casualties reached at least 80,000 throughout the course of the battle. The troops fought in conditions that would, in other circumstances, have been a winter wonderland, among evergreen trees freshly covered in snow. American troops suffered frostbite, and the inclement weather favored the Germans, delaying reinforcements and neutralizing American air superiority.

"Soldiers who were lucky created makeshift Christmas trees by hanging grenades on pine trees. But GIs who were captured by the Germans were packed into boxcars in unsanitary conditions and got almost nothing to eat. 'They filled the time wanly singing carols,' Weintraub writes. 'The Germans complained that it kept them awake and threatened to shoot if the songs didn't cease.'

"'At the front, German loudspeakers broadcast across the lines, 'How would you like to die for Christmas?' Americans didn't intimidate so easily. One American soldier in the encircled city of Bastogne commented to another, 'They?ve got us surrounded -- the poor bastards.' When a German commander demanded the surrender of the Americans at Bastogne, Gen. Anthony McAuliffe famously responded in a note, 'To the German Commander: 'Nuts!'"

In his diary, Patton wrote on Christmas Day: "A clear, cold, Christmas, lovely weather for killing Germans, which seems a bit queer seeing Whose birthday it is." Persistence paid off; by early January, the Germans were in retreat and the Allies were moving to the Rhine.

It's a wonderful story, and something to be pondered for the sake of our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who won't be home for Christmas this Christmas. Say a holiday prayer for them between the caroling and the feasting and the opening of presents.

And have a prosperous and healthy '07. The ladies of the IWF hope to see you back here on Jan. 2.

Will we be humiliated in Iraq?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:36:00 EST

Liberals see Iraq as Vietnam Redux. But now in the (London) Spectator, Charles Moore compares the possible effects of a U.S. stand-down in Iraq to the effect of England's failure of nerve at Suez -- an idea both so striking and so distressing (especially in light of the midterm elections) that I am breaking Inkwell's unofficial ban on discussing articles that require registration to mention it.

For those of you who might be hazy on Suez:

"Fifty years ago on Monday, Britain ordered its soldiers in Egypt to cease fire. An Anglo-French force, secretly colluding with Israel, had invaded because Nasser, the President of Egypt, had nationalized the Suez Canal. Militarily, our invasion was successful, but it caused international political outrage. America and the United Nations denounced it.

"The ceasefire was a humiliation for Britain, and marked the end of our leading, colonial role in the Middle East. The Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was discredited, and anyway became too ill to continue. In January, he resigned...."

The coming humiliation in Iraq, if it comes (we do have two years to solve the problems, and maybe we can solve a few) will likely signal to the world that we don't have a stomach for war. Moore writes about the Bush-Blair vision for Iraq -- and about the people who will now have the guts to stay the course. The "insurgents."

"Bush and Blair were also right more broadly that the world after September 11 challenged America and her allies to create a different order. They had been the status quo power, and had been punished for it. Now America needed to become a transformational force in the Middle East. In this respect, the Vietnam comparison now being drawn is wrong. In Vietnam, America tried to prop up a collapsing order. In the Middle East, it seeks to create a new one.

"Everyone can see that it is not working properly. America and Britain were not ready from the start to back a strong provisional government in Iraq, and so were quickly seen as an occupying power rather than an enabling one. There were plans aplenty, but Mr. Bush never exerted his authority over warring Washington factions to get one plan agreed. The diplomacy was poor; there weren’t enough soldiers; there weren’t nearly enough people ready to rebuild the infrastructure.

"And now it is worse still because people can see the weakening of the will of the West. There isn’t much more that we dare do. As one Iraqi friend put it to me: 'It won’t improve if your troops stay, and it will get much worse if they leave.'

"One hears that America, encouraged by the old-think of James Baker, is putting out feelers to Iran to find out what it wants in Iraq. A senior British official has just been to Syria. Expect some grand conference in which the terrorist-supporting powers of the region bargain with the West for spheres of influence in Iraq, over the heads of the people who actually live there and voted freely, in amazingly large numbers, for a government of their own. It is all very depressing.

"Today, everyone blames the neoconservatives. It reminds me of a remark by Daniel Defoe in the early 18th century that the apprentice boys of London have very little idea of what a Papist is, but thousands of them are more than happy to go out and break his windows. Who in Britain knows that neocons are a phenomenon of the Left and that neither George W. Bush, nor Dick Cheney, nor Donald Rumsfeld has ever been one? Indeed, devilishly clever though neocons may be, they can’t be very good at PR, for they were responsible for about five per cent of the action in Iraq and have attracted about 95 per cent of the blame.

"It is not mad ideology that got us into this war -- or rather, the madness and the ideology come from our opponents, not from ourselves. If we do pull all our troops out, mock Blair and Bush, and hail some deal with Iran as 'peace,' we shall have a few weeks of self-congratulation, but that is all.

"The Islamist movements that wait to cheer our withdrawal are not militarily strong, but they are good at what they call 'the management of savagery,' and they know that the West’s attention span is much shorter than their own. It is a pity that we seem so determined to prove them right."

William Shawcross on armchair pundits and Iraq...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:41:00 EST

Brit journalist William Shawcross, who braved cries of betrayal from his former friends on the left by supporting the invasion of Iraq, agrees with President Bush that the current level of violence is aimed at the American voter. Writing in the Spectator, Shawcross confronts the prevailing pundit palaver on Iraq:

1. Unlike pundits and Democrats, Shawcross blames our enemies, not us, for the continuing violence:

"Armchair pundits in the West like to blame the crisis in Iraq on mistakes made in Washington, particularly by Donald Rumsfeld. There have certainly been such mistakes, but whether the present situation would have been markedly different without them can never be known.

"Moreover, our mistakes were tactical not moral; our soldiers have not died plundering or colonising Iraq - they have died trying to help Iraqis make it better. The blame for the present chaos lies, above all, with the monstrous al-Qa'eda and Baathist Sunni terrorists and the equally vile Shia militia, who are abetted by Iran. The vast majority of deaths in Iraq are being inflicted by Muslims on other Muslims, for reasons which have little to do with us."

2. He also sees the dire consequences of an E-Z exit strategy:

"There are those who claim we could make a deal with Iran and its client Syria in a compromise settlement of Iraq's problems. It's hard to envisage. Both governments have done everything possible to destroy the new Iraq. The Syrian government has enabled the Damascus Baathist mafia to smuggle thousands of suicide bombers into Iraq. Our bomb disposal experts can often identify the precise Tehran factories in which car bombs and other deadly explosive devices have been manufactured. Iran is now stoking the violence by warning that it could do even worse if it gets its way with its nuclear ambitions."

3. Shawcross notes that our forces have adapted and are actually fighting more effectively:

"‘The US army and the marines have transformed themselves in the last two years,' [a Sandhurst military expert] says. ‘They set up their own counter-insurgency school and all officers down to platoon level pass through it. It is a far more effective force than it was in 2003.'"

All of which will be irrelevant if the Democrats muster enough wins to realize their dream of turning Iraq into Vietnam.

Open mouth, insert Jimmy Choos...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:24:00 EDT

Dan Rather (see below) isn't the only cultural icon recently promoted to the coveted status of a victim don't forget those po' little Dixie Chicks!

Natalie Maines, you'll recall, got the victim ball rolling for the Chicks with an anti-Bush rant that went over like a lead balloon with C & W fans.

The Chicks recently talked about their victim status with a Brit scribbler (as Myrna Blyth, who penned this wonderful commentary notes, the Chicks always fall for an English accent. It makes them open their mouths and insert their Jimmy Choos!):

At lunch [Chick Martie] Maguire whined about how poor Natalie, superstar as victim, was mistreated after she apologized to a British audience at a concert for being from the same state as President Bush. It was in the days leading up to the start of the war in Iraq. The aftermath of Maines's remark 'was like the McCarthy days, and it was almost like the country was unrecognizable,' Maguire declared, without a touch of irony.
Then [Chick Emily] Robison jumped in to diss any singer who was supportive of our country at the time. According to her, all they were doing was 'cashing in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career.' In other words, only self-absorbed, liberal, America-hating celebrities can be sincere. Robison continued, 'You'd see soldiers and American flags in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra patriotism.'
That really got the mouthy Maines going. Through 'gritted teeth' she declared, 'The entire country may disagree with me but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country, I don't see why people care about patriotism.'
How can we take seriously a singer who doesn't seem to be so smart about music history, let alone American history? Maines apparently isn't aware that the lyric 'this land is my land, this land is your land' was written by Woody Guthrie, also a critic of our country, but one who not only talked the talk but truly walked the long painful walk across Depression-era America.
What is really upsetting -- and what these three may share with too many others today -- is their tone deafness when it comes to realizing the enormous opportunities that being an America has given them. Rather, they sulk and complain, and feel oh-so-badly-one-by. Maines seems to think that living in a place she likes and having a life she likes is her right, and is completely unrelated to our country's past, our system of government, and the sacrifices others have made (and continue to make today) for her well-being.

Like many entertainers, the Chicks are talented but that talent does not encompass a talent for astute political observations. Or, as Myrna says:

Shoot, I remember when the trio's primary goal was not discussing the pros and cons of America's foreign policy with Diane Sawyer but scoring a cover on Redbook.

Come on, people -- it's not "Louie, Louie"

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 09 May 2006 09:30:00 EDT

ABC’s Nightline did a fabulous feature last night about the National Anthem. Turns out 61% of Americans don’t know the words. Now, if it was a song like "Louie, Louie" (with the most misunderstood lyrics in history) I’d have a little sympathy. But, this is the NATIONAL ANTHEM. It’s time to step up.

It gets worse. So, the Nightline folk decided to test politicians. Turns out they don’t know the words either! Most congressmen refused to answer questions about the lyrics or acted really busy and blew off the camera crew. A few congressmen tried to sing and messed up the lyrics, resulting in a sad state of affairs for the American people and hilarity for me as I watched them fail. Politicians who unsuccessfully attempted the song included: Shuster (PA), Kennedy (MI), Matheson (UT), and Reyes (TX). It’s worth pointing out that, while these people failed, a progressive dressed in a fish costume to protest polluted waterways sang the song perfectly.

The fashionable bias of the Pulitzers...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:54:00 EDT

Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan is a terrific writer, but--let’s face it--she got her Pulitzer (for "commentary") for saying that Republicans wear ugly clothes. Foreign columnist Max Boot points out that the selection of Givhan is just the latest indication of bias:

It is hard to see how media apologists can deny their political bias when no fewer than four prizes were given at least in part for Bush-bashing. These included awards to Mike Luckovich, the left-wing cartoonist of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who routinely portrays President Bush as a malevolent dolt, and Robin Givhan, the catty fashion critic of the Washington Post, who devoted an entire column to ridiculing Vice President Dick Cheney’s attire at an Auschwitz ceremony.

But the bias thing, Boot notes, goes beyond the superficial:

There’s nothing wrong with caustic criticism, but two of the award winners went further, into areas that may hamper our battle against Islamist terrorism. The Washington Post’s Dana Priest won a prize for revealing the existence of secret CIA-operated prisons in Eastern Europe, and the New York Times’ James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won for revealing the existence of a secret program to intercept communications between terrorists abroad and their domestic contacts....
This would seem to lend support to the more overwrought critics on the right who imagine that the media are dominated by an anti-American cabal.

But, no, this brand of reporting occurs in part, Boot argues, because of the media’s own peculiar notion of objectivity:

....Having written for major newspapers for years, I have never found any Al Qaeda moles in the newsroom. What I have found is that journalists feel more bound by their duty to their profession than to their country and that their highest professional calling, as they see it, is to preserve a halo of ’objectivity’ by not choosing sides in any controversy....
No one working for the mainstream media today would refer, as Ernie Pyle did during World War II, to ’our soldiers,’ 'our offensive,’ ’our predicament.’ Today it’s ’American soldiers,’ ’the military offensive’ and (most damning of all) ’the president’s predicament’ - as if this were Bush’s war, not ours. Just as newsies no longer identify in print with our troops, so they are careful to use impartial language about our enemies. Reuters has gone so far as to all but ban the use of 'terrorist,' which is considered too judgmental.
An unwillingness to play favorites makes sense when reporting on most topics. Mainstream reporters shouldn’t choose between Republicans and Democrats or Microsoft and its critics (though in practice they usually do). But is studied neutrality really the right posture when covering a battle against monsters who fly hijacked aircraft into office buildings?
Los Angeles Times media columnist Tim Rutten, in defending the Pulitzers, claimed that critics "don’t want an unbiased news media, they want a press that reflects their bias.
Right. I want journalists to cover the present struggle as a fight between good and evil. And when the good guys - that would be U.S. officials - say that certain revelations would help the bad guys, I want them to be given the benefit of the doubt. So, I suspect, do most Americans.
The problem with the mainstream media - and a big part of why their audience is declining - is that this is seen as a ’bias’ to be resisted at all costs.