Not even the Associated Press can continue to turn a blind eye;
The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
If you happen to travel the Canadian leftosphere these days, you may notice a deafening silence from certain “progressives” who celebrated every US military setback, every marketplace explosion, every terrorist strike.
Yes you did, you pathetic wastes of skin – you loved every minute of it. Cloaking your words in faux outrage didn’t make your motives any less transparent. You rejoiced in the prospect that a President you despise and a nation you envy might be humiliated.
It hardly mattered that the consequences of a western power losing to the forces of Islamic fascism would be visited as severely upon you and yours, as they would those who of us who argued for victory. You can’t help yourselves – it’s your nature. But, I truly don’t know how you face yourselves in the mirror.
Related: A must read – Audacity of Hopelessness.
“what the bright lites ( those against the Iraqi war) fail to see is the strastegic importance of Iraq in the greater mideast arena.”
Oh, is that the excuse for the Iraq occupation for week #282? I’m sure the Iraqi people appreciate the strategic importance their country poses.
lol
Good one Steve: “How often do you hear Canadian leaders talking about working together to get stuff done?”
That would have been the “Unionist Government” of 1917 under Sir Robert Borden. Since then the Libs and Dippers have been less cooperative.
Cheers
Kate, great post. Angry as you are as well at this bit of putridity. In an earlier period of time these folks would be dancing with a rope on a stage about to do an old jig called penalty for treason. Its one thing to be cynical or even be against something, including a war one might be in, you must have free speech. That’s not only acceptable but a must to keep a moral perspective. Quite another in my mind, to encourage your Countries defeat, if not yearn for, or help for it to become vanquished in combat.
I don’t even mind if they say America should lose for real reasons or even fanciful ones. What burns me is the concerted campaign by some for directional demoralization because of political ideology, not the war itself. The war just became a vehicle by these types to push an agenda not the interest of the Nation, but goals of personnel opinionated nature, for discrediting a political faction. None of the people involved cared one wit for facts or realism, least of all the good of the Country. Just rage without measure, lies dipped in yellow snow. BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) with Viagra.
I think this song says it all when it comes to the Left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhdGkZ6Fngw&feature=related
“the Iraq occupation for week #282?”
Note the fall back position, now it’s all about an “occupation”. A few years from now they’ll be screaming about the new embassy: it’s the wrong colour! The drapes are hideous!
Morgan, two points:
1. What part of occupation don’t you understand?
2. Yes, the half billion dollar palace masquerading as an embassy that is visible from space easily qualifies as “hideous”.
Raphael, you may be a “fifth generation Canadian” and a “moderate conservative”, but your strawman hit piece on Kate on your sight is pure leftard tautology, and you understand precious little about on the ground realities of nation reconstruction after removing whatever passes for a government.
You can proclaim it an “occupation” (it isn’t, or it is, depending on your definition, or you can call it a war, or a campaign, or a peacemaking or a police action. On the ground, it doesn’t matter what you call it. The war didn’t “end” the days Saddam and family died, it began then. Removing a genocidal dictator was only the beginning. Stabilizing the country after was the real war. Opportunists abound in such circumstances and they do not all come from the western hemisphere. In the political lion’s pit that is the middle east, the US and the coalition had no choice but to stay and protect the transformation. Cutting and running was not an option. Its not over; predators abound still but Iraq is turning the corner.
The UN has no legitimacy as a body to sanction any multilateral action – it gave up that claim decades ago through its corruption, its cowardice, and its avarice. Iraq will be a success in spite of the UN. God willing, if we can keep the UN out of Afghanistan, so will it.
steve :
Does the CHRC pay you overtime?
Nicest piece of meaningless PC drivel I ever heard on both posts. You must get a lot of practice. The city here would love you as an administrator its so objective it means nothing but sweet smurfisms.
By the way you have to have two ideologies to have a bi-partisan position to begin with. Canada has none. It basically has three left leaning parties. NDP=Hard Left. Liberals=center left when it suites them. Conservatives=socialist light.
Depending on the hue of the rose covered glasses there the same party, only divided by approach, corruption, or ideological blindness like Taliban Jack. I will say these Conservatives have mostly kept there promises, but why the quiet on the HRC front?
To blame Kate for stirring up discord for posting the truth is just plain silly, its up to individuals to decide if her posts have merit.
This one defiantly does, if only to show the yellow streak in the MSM towards anything Islamic.
Frankly we will be in Afghanistan for decades & so will America be in Iraq. Think not? Think Cyprus. Think Germany or Japan. So the lack of Saddism is meaningless. Iran is going to be too busy to hold hands with Iraq.
Happy Trails
Just because there are far worse evils than US hegemony, do not make it any more desirable. Of course if “nature abhors a vacuum” is true, then I’ll take the lesser evil occupying that vacuum instead of some of the nastier choices any day, but I’d much rather they’d all just piss off and leave us the hell alone!
@revnant dream…
I didn’t use the term “bi-partisan” anywhere. I referred to reducing partisanship not between ideologies, but parties. I don’t know why I’m getting attacked for that around here of all places. Maybe its because some of you guys are so partisan in defending Queen Kate, you fail to recognize an idea out of contemporary conservatism when you see it. In recent times, appeals of less partisanship were championed by the Reform party. Ya know, the whole idea of free votes that all the major parties have tossed out today?
By suggesting that representatives work together, I’m saying they should vote their conscience mainly. Under the failed bill,government falls way of doing things little would get done, so that probably has to change for it to be practical.
You guys can label me PC or whatever you want. I agree with some of the stuff Kate writes. I also agree with Warren Kinsella sometimes…and even Jack Layton. I’m a pragmatist though…not an ideologue who thinks lines have been drawn and its “us vs them”. That kind of script sounds good in a movie, but rarely is it so in life.
“It’s hard to picture him saluting the troops and trooping the guard, seeing as he avoided the fighting men and women in his very brief photo o…oops, I mean stopover in Af’stan.”
BATB, you’re such a victim: nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/24/2008-07-24_army_officials_refute_claim_of_barack_ob.html?print=1&page=all
Steve: Pragmatism is a cute word meaning ‘ME! ME! ME!’ Nothing more, nothing less. Gives you little room for discussion because you have nothing to base your arguments on, Right?. (Some would accuse Castro of being a pragmatist!)
A quick question – How do you champion those that walk out of the HOC on orders from the French Leader of the Opposition during confidence votes. Are they truly voting their consciences??
CRB
@crb
The first part of your argument makes absolutely no sense. Please illustrate how pragmatism is about “me, me, me?” And Castro is not a pragmatist in the least. I’m not so sure you have any idea what you’re talking about given that comment. Castro (Fidel) is the epitome of an idealist and an ideologue. He’s a self described Marxist-Leninist and has devoted his life to invoking Lenin’s path to utopia, despite the obvious negative impacts to his citizens. A pragmatist would have examined the negative impacts of his ideological adherence and done something about it. That’s not to say he would have said he doesn’t believe the world is better off in a bastion of socialism, but he would have made concessions and long ago adopted reforms to benefit Cuban’s in areas where they are weak. His brother Raul may be more pragmatic, but that remains to be seen.
So Fidel, who I assume you were referring to, is an ideologue like yourself… and Kate McMillian. You believe you’re caught up in a battle against one another. I get to dip and choose and take what works best from each of your ideologies based on real evidence. I can say government intervention works good here, but not so well here, etc. Your world is much more black and white.
As to the second half…
No, the libs are not voting their consciences at all. I never thought they were. Quite honestly I think Stephan Dion is a weak leader, but that’s not really news, is it? I imagine most in his party agree with me behind closed doors. I find it funny when I debate on here, because people I always assume that if I disagree with McMillan or the CPC, I must be in the Liberals back pocket, or with the NDP or some other party.
Part of being a non partisan pragmatist with no party affiliation, is that I don’t have to feel like I’m on Dion, Layton, or Harper’s side. If they suck, I get to say they suck. Conversely if I like any of their policy, I can get behind it and not feel like I’m betraying anyone. It’s not about winning or being on a team for me, its about examining the real actions and implications of whoever is governing, giving credit where its due, and criticism when its warranted. In my mind you guys have cheapened the debate to good and bad teams. You have your pejorative slangs for those you dislike (the dippers, and the libranos) and then there’s your almighty conservatives who can do little wrong.
Honestly, if the Tories weren’t full of social conservatives, I could probably consider voting for them. But as it stands, that aspect sort of clashes with the social libertarian in me. That doesn’t mean I hate everything they’ve done though. The cell phone spectrum auction where they set aside room for new competitors was great policy. Taxing income trusts was another good move, a pragmatic one at that. They’ve been fairly prudent in spending as well. Like many here I think the HRC should be abolished. Let the biggots show their true colours and voice their opinions without fear of repercussion so they can be warded out by level headed people.
Anyway, time for bed. Point is, pragmatism is a breath of fresh air that allows you to not get caught up in certain parties and ideologies, but rather the real implications of public policy.
“But the left still puzzles me, with their support for radical Islam, an ideology which if it ever dominated, would decimate the soft lifestyle of the left. They certainly are able to confront; they demonstrate against the US all the time, they demonstrate against industry, against..whatever. So – I don’t understand their support for fascism.”
It is a mystery to me too. As far as Canadians go, the left “progressives” will trash the US in one breath and call on President Bush to save the world in the next. (Darfur) This is proof of their hypocracy and mendacity. We get it…we really do. The poor misguided left Obamabots in the US will grovel for approval cheering those incoherant speeches made in foreign countries while on a Trash America tour but the rest of us, the ones with actual brains who are able to take the long view of foreign policy, and especially Islam,well we say to the US haters here and abroad…SO WHAT!!
Steve –
The problem with pragmatism is that we don’t have a pragmatic governance model. While a particular party can be pragmatic in its approach to governing, that horse seems to have left the barn, generally. The CPC seems significantly more pragmatic than either of the liberals or the NDP. Both of those parties, in the view of most participants here, have drifted so far to the left as to have become full-fledged socialist ideologues.
“In my mind you guys have cheapened the debate to good and bad teams.” No, we didn’t do that – that has been the case in political Canada for more than 100 years and more so, in the past couple of decades. The Liberals, in their previous life, raised the subtlety of that to a high degree of finesse. From the “scary” Harper stories, to the “soldiers in our cities” to a 101 other ways and means. And, in the long view, there are “good and bad teams”. Always a matter of individual perspective, but as I have stated on Kate’s blog before, secularism doesn’t exist. Even libertarians have a moral compass that is something other than hedonism.
Scratch the surface of most here and you will find an army of pragmatists, not ideologues. The reactionary ideology you find here is exactly that – reactionary. Its a line in the sand against the movement away from identification of the free individual as the core value, to freedom of the hive, often lacking the very pragmatism you embrace. We all get that here.
But there is Pragmatism and there is being pragmatic… The danger to a completely pragmatic view is that there is allegiance to nothing. No moral compass, no commonality of goals. Its the ideology that provides the framework for pragmatic action.
As you have discovered, effective governance always requires some degree of pragmatism, but like all things in life, moderation is generally a good thing. Don’t stray too far from the concept that pragmatism is itself an ideology.
People come to Kate’s blog and view her postings in isolation – that’s a mistake. She does her homework, and in most cases, each post is but one more chapter in a long and carefully considered story. There is a lot to tell in many of these stories and in many the details are ugly and gritty. You are expected to exercise your brain cells here. Drive-by’s will get the derision they deserve.
@Skip, 7:44 PM”
“Having different political convictions doesn’t make you a bad human being.”
Yes, it does.
I believe tyranny is the best form of governance, and reigning by fear is the only successful way.
My name is “fill in dictator of choice”.
Actually, it wasn’t me @ 7:44PM, but yes, holding certain political convictions certainly may indeed, make you a bad human being…
Click
Kate, scanning through these comments, I’m going to have to stay with my “blind hatred” diagnosis for the Lefties. They may look in the mirror but all they see is how much they hate you and me and anybody who’s not on their team today.
I see the usual trolls spouting the usual verbiage, I don’t see ANY of them admitting that the deposing and hanging of a guy who had a special section in his jails just for children was a good thing.
The Americans have done something that has never been accomplished before, in this world, ever, in recorded history. A heinous dictator has been deposed, his army scattered but not killed en mass. The people organized to provide -for themselves- the necessary support for a modern state, including all the infrastructure that was blown up in the war. The Americans did all this since 2001 when they suffered a six hundred billion dollar attack on their largest city and their military HQ. That 7 years to victory from a standing start.
They’ve done it while fighting the secret armies of Iran and syria in an undeclared war, plus every Islamist lunatic who could ride his camel over from Saudi Arabia. They’ve done it while still fighting the leftover rump of Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. They’ve done it while all comers were being armed by the Chicoms and the Russians, America’s supposed-to-be allies.
And finally, they’ve managed all this while one of their two political parties did their flat-out best to arrange DEFEAT. Defeat through the unceasing machinations of the DemocRats in the House and the Senate, and through the friggin’ unholy propaganda campaign of lies and disinformation on the news every night and in dozens of Hollywood movies.
They won. More to the point all you Lefty a$$holes LOST. Looks good on you.
Not wanting to take the wind out of the sails as perhaps the “Surge” has produced results – however if the Coalition leaves it will only be more of the ageless same.
>>>BAGHDAD — Three female suicide bombers killed at least 28 people and wounded 92 in Baghdad on Monday as Shi’ite pilgrims flooded into the Iraqi capital for a major religious event, police said.
In the northern oil city of Kirkuk a suicide bomber killed at least 16 people and wounded 112 others at a demonstration against Iraq’s provincial elections law, the U.S. military said.
The attacks underscored the fragility of recent security gains in Iraq, where violence has fallen to four-year lows.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the Baghdad blasts, but al Qaeda has often targeted Shi’ite pilgrims taking part in religious events in Iraq. It considers Shi’ism — the majority Muslim denomination in Iraq — heretical.
“however if the Coalition leaves it will only be more of the ageless same.”
Is the leftard cup ALWAYS half empty? Are you ALL Robbie the Robots, endlessly prevaricating with the voice of doom? If you ever do manage to bring everyone together to sing Kumbayah, what are you going to do at the party, bitch about the warm beer and the soggy chips as you try ruminate about the fact the party’s great, and fear you might have left somebody out?
Is there any hope at all for those who suffer from Chronic Leftist Mental Disorder?
Unfortunately for them it appears not.
The Phantom,
I agree, wooo Saddam is dead, but “The Americans have done something that has never been accomplished before, in this world, ever, in recorded history”…..huh? By “recorded history” do you mean in the last 20 years? Apart from the fact that the U.S. often HELPS dictators and supports them when it serves their own interest, let’s go through some examples that you seem to have missed:
-Hitler. Wow, hard to forget the U.S. helped with liberating the continent of Europe.
-Japanese Emperor’s during WW2.
-Napoleon bringing ideas of the french revolution and overthrowing monarchies all over the place, bringing the idea of constitutions and parliaments across Europe.
-Romans bringing the Pax Romana to huge portions of the known world, bringing an unprecedented level of civilization and human advancement, taking out literally dozens of dictators along the way (while conversely enslaving various populations at times as well).
-Bolsheviks overthrowing Nicholas II, bring the idea of the community electoral system through groups known as “soviets” and convening parliaments and congressional sessions before Lenin took total control of the state.
There are probably many more examples; I’m not a history major or even that well read regarding the history of democratic movements or the overthrowing of dictators, but one thing I do know is that the U.S. indulges in Real Politik. They support whomever they have to to further their own interests. If that means being friendly with Nicaragua, the Shah of Iran, the King of Saudia Arabia, or the military dictators of Pakistan; then so be it.
Now, obviously if Iraq turns into a legit democracy with some real freedoms, then awesome, way to go Bush. He cloaked his campaign there in the idea that it was about freedom (the reason I reject that he was there for that reason is that there are tons of other nations who are more suitable to a “conversion” to democracy and freedom expression, without the need to kill off hundreds of thousands of people), and that’s all. So please don’t confuse the issue.
“Bolsheviks overthrowing Nicholas II, bring the idea of the community electoral system through groups known as “soviets” and convening parliaments and congressional sessions before Lenin took total control of the state.”
My parents lived in Russia when the Bolsheviks overthrew Nicholas under who they lived in peace and prosperity. My mother said the first thing the Bolsheviks did was take everyones guns. Then they came back and slaughtered whole villages of men children, and all the women after they raped them. My parents families fled leaving behind almost everything, but they escaped with their lives. And you consider the Bolsheviks as some kind of heros?