Facts not reported are the truth of omission.

You rejoiced in the prospect that a President you despise and a nation you envy might be humiliated.

It actually began before the Iraq invasion. On 9/11/01 to be precise. Some in the leftosphere could barely contain their glee as those airliners slammed into the WTC. All the "they deserved it" prattling began within hours.

I remember some petty moron declaring triumphantly to a CBC reporter that "the center of capitalism had just had a great big heart attack".

Two posts where Dr Dawg explains why we should get out of Afstan, and debates ensue:

"A Challenge to Canadian Leftists...from one of their own" (see Comments thread)

"Civilian deaths in Afghanistan" (the Woofmeister's own post)

Mark
Ottawa

Agree completely with your comments on the left - they despise Bush for confronting and taking on Islamic fascism - and they envy Americans.

What do they envy? The American insistence on freedom, both in speech and the market place - rather than our censorship and crippling regulations. They envy the American insistence on confronting situations rather than the Canadian Way which is to hide behind a bureaucracy (UN or other govt) or let the Americans protect us militarily.

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.

This is also relevant:

"...Cybercast News Service (CNSNews) was started in 1998 as an in-depth source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who want more news on issues that are often under-reported or ignored.

CNSNews notes that the number of journalists embedded with U.S. Forces in Iraq has plunged by 74% in the past nine months -- from 219 in September 2007 to 58 in June 2008.

This reduced media coverage coincides with a 75% (June) to 84% (May) drop in the U.S. casualty rate, compared to a year ago. Fewer dead -- less reporting..."

Mark
Ottawa

The AP had to release it on Saturday, though, the slowest news day.

Perhaps ET, the left has the confidence that it can bully militant Islam - no problem if Islam defeats Bush and Cheney, and if it encroaches on us we'll just use the same tactics against the mullahs. The reporters and editors on will co-operate in the fight against the mullahs, yes? Either that, they believe that militant Islam merely shares their objective to dethrone Bush/Cheney. Once that is accomplished, we can all go back to being friends.

ET, have we ever heard even a single cogent argument from the left as to why they believe militant Islam is not a threat to them, personally? I've never read or seen one. Blinded by a hatred of the right, and naive in the extreme.

"It's all about oil", is not logically the same as "it's only about oil".

Yeah sure, Kate.

I think we can draw a direct correlation between the media's softening on Iraq and the rise of Obamaism. The media has been lavishing attention on Obama and has already crowned him defacto President. It would look bad for the big O if his "damn the torpedoes we're outta there" approach was met with negative coverage on Iraq. And it would lend credence to the McCain camp. I'm not saying things haven't actually improved but I would think the dwindling of the press coverage isn't solely because of it.

The left don't like it that their favourite rallying points "talking" and "education" were useless against Sadam and the Taliban.

Sometimes you really just have to kill the bastards and the left won't admit it.

The left only kills its own see the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Cuba, etc.

I think we can draw a direct correlation between the media's softening on Iraq and the rise of Obamaism. The media has been lavishing attention on Obama and has already crowned him defacto President. It would look bad for the big O if his "damn the torpedoes we're outta there" approach was met with negative coverage on Iraq. And it would lend credence to the McCain camp. I'm not saying things haven't actually improved but I would think the dwindling of the press coverage isn't solely because of it.

Sorry about the double post. Finger fumble.....

Only one candidate for president believes that peace is possible, his name is John McCain. The leftards are already saying that the war will restart no matter who wins, to cover for their preternatually cynical candidate.

It is not the left I despise. They are like rainy days - not pleasant but necessary. They provide a constant challenge to my outlook on life and interpretation of the issues of the day. They are always wrong but never give up no matter how totally screwed up their big ideas prove to be.

The people and organizations I really despise are the media. Their job is to report what is happening - not what they want to happen. If they were at least honest and said "we report everything with an extreme left-wing anti-american bias - please read our stuff accordingly" I could at least tolerate them. But despite all evidence to the contrary they claim they are the only truly unbiased people on the planet and we should trust their message explicitly.

Their bias is bad enough but when they venture into actively promoting our enemy's propaganda in order to damage local conservative governments - at this point their actions are inexcusable, unconscionable and treasonous. Their propagandizing for the enemy is getting our soldiers targeted and killed.

The terrorists know they cannot win a military battle with the west. That is why they use terror as their method to demoralize and defeat us. This worked in Vietnam and is being attempted in our fight against Islamo-fascism. If our media is working with the enemy then to me anyone who supports the media is working with the enemy. I am glad to see that so many North American see it the way I do and are withholding their eyeballs.

The left "progressives" have moved on.
...-

"Moonbats Protest U.S. Stand against IRAN
July 22,2008"
(freerepublic)

Bob Rae is THE primary example of what Kate's talking about. His comments on both Iraq and Afstan reek of pacifist anti-americanism. Hopefully one day he will be publically hoisted on his own rhetorical petard.

"Yeah sure, Kate.
Posted by: Chuck at July 27, 2008 1:21 PM"

That's it, Chuck? That's all you got?

Everytime you lefties post comments like that, you just prove us right. No facts, just "yeah, sure... we're right and you're wrong".

Back up how Kate's wrong. What are your facts? Show us that lefties weren't salivating at the possible loss in Iraq; salivating every time a US troop was killed as some sort of signal you were right and Bush was the problem, not the Islamic extremists that would hang every one of you for being who you are. Those people don't much care for progressives, homosexuals, women, Christians, Jews or even atheists.

The problem is, you can't...

Lefties are way beyond stupid. Every single one of them.

McCain: "Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice."

I can't either. But that's what the U.S. will get if they elect Obama the POTUS: a Commander in Chief with no military experience, who seems to have little appreciation for the U.S.'s military obligations . 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.

ET: "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."

You've heard the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? I think this is what's going on here, ET.

Islamofascism is the enemy of all things progressive: for instance, Christian countries in the West which have always supported true freedom, democracy, equality before the law for men and women, etc., nevermind that Islamists would equally like to blast the progressive lefistsphere and the Christian West to smithereens.

The left sees only as far as their own ideologies and comforts, and seems incapable of understanding logical consequences, otherwise why would they, at least here in Canada, ever vote for the Librano$ or the NDP?

'See what I mean?

There is no war in Iraq. The Iraq war took place in 2003 and was over in a matter of weeks. What has happened since is an occupation, period.

This carrot of imminent "victory" is childish. The bill for the Iraq war and occupation, which was completely unnecessary, now exceeds $860 billion taxpayer dollars and thousands of lives and limbs. Those who supported it should have their assets seized to pay for it. I've seen stranger things happen.

Kate said: "But, I truly don't know how you face yourselves in the mirror."

Blind hatred?

Morons persist...........

These people only had to read Yon and Totten, or see the mil bloggers' pages.

This is really important. The US has always been respected as a powerful, all crushing military might, but the theory of the asymmetrical enemies is the Vietnam theory that the war can always be lost at home and that the US soldier will not shoot it out in the street.

Both these two theories have been shot down, especially the second. People will be a little more careful in messing with uncle Sam.

The US has demonstrated its ability at big and small wars. This is good.

This is related to the simpering and whining of of the lefty tools... as the NATO forces in Iraq press their assaults after the Taliban and AQ who seek safe shelter in Pakistasn ... the noise about the evil US intrusion into the lawless border regions has been going up. In spite of this crap from the leftards the efforts continue to yield results.

thank you very much ...

Oops I type -O - d ... thats forces in Afghanistan not Iraq .... apologies !!!

The New York Times, wonder of wonders, states in a lengthy article published on today's front page, "The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq."

Actually, the U.S. had deposed the Iraqi dictator by December of 2003 and had defeated the Iraqi regular Army by April 9, 2003.

The "war" ended on that date. What began after that was an insurgency against the occupation.

'VICTORY in IRAQ' will never be heard in the left MSM. GLOOM AND DOOM corruption and support for terrorists is more their style of reporting.

'VICTORY in IRAQ' will never be heard in the left MSM. GLOOM AND DOOM corruption and support for terrorists is more their style of reporting.

Where are the praises for Iraqi soldiers and their allies who fought together for the 'freedom of Iraq'

No, Raphael, correct thinker - it was not an occupation or 'insurgency against the occupation'. The US never occupied Iraq. Do you know what the term actually means?

What happened after the fall of Hussein was the devt of the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, made up of Americans (Garner, Bremer) and Iraqi; its agenda was to develop the democratic infrastructure of a constitution and electoral system. It lasted for one year, and the Iraqi government was then developed and took over.

During this period, there also existed the attempt by other tribes and special interest groups (religious 'tribes') to take control and prevent a democracy. Then, Iran and Syria also moved in via funding and providing militants.

But, the Iraqi people developed their own constitution and democracy. It worked and is working. It isn't easy to change from a tribal structure to a democratic one; it can't be done overnight. It normally takes several generations.

The Greek - nice comments. Thanks.

LEMON, PETER C.

Rank and organization: Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company E, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division

Place and date: Tay Ninh Province, Republic of Vietnam, 1 April 1970

Entered service at: Tawas City, Michigan

Born: 5 June 1950, Toronto, Canada

Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Lemon (then Sp4c.), Company E, distinguished himself while serving as an assistant machine gunner during the defense of Fire Support Base Illingworth. When the base came under heavy enemy attack, Sgt. Lemon engaged a numerically superior enemy with machine gun and rifle fire from his defensive position until both weapons malfunctioned. He then used hand grenades to fend off the intensified enemy attack launched in his direction. After eliminating all but 1 of the enemy soldiers in the immediate vicinity, he pursued and disposed of the remaining soldier in hand-to-hand combat. Despite fragment wounds from an exploding grenade, Sgt. Lemon regained his position, carried a more seriously wounded comrade to an aid station, and, as he returned, was wounded a second time by enemy fire. Disregarding his personal injuries, he moved to his position through a hail of small arms and grenade fire. Sgt. Lemon immediately realized that the defensive sector was in danger of being overrun by the enemy and unhesitatingly assaulted the enemy soldiers by throwing hand grenades and engaging in hand-to-hand combat. He was wounded yet a third time, but his determined efforts successfully drove the enemy from the position. Securing an operable machine gun, Sgt. Lemon stood atop an embankment fully exposed to enemy fire, and placed effective fire upon the enemy until he collapsed from his multiple wounds and exhaustion. After regaining consciousness at the aid station, he refused medical evacuation until his more seriously wounded comrades had been evacuated. Sgt. Lemon's gallantry and extraordinary heroism, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

Canadian, eh?

The only thing the leftards hate more than Bush and the Merican people is Canadian Culture and history. They'd be happy to crawl into bed with slime bag terrorist and their buddies if it aided them in destroying the US and Canada. These fruitloops actually think they can destroy our culture and replace it with Marxist Doctorine. Honestly how stupid are these fools, communism/socialism doctorine has killed millions of people do they honestly think we'll sit on our hands and do nothing whilst the left and far left destory our soceity. Yea they actually do.

I've read posts by Canadians that chill me to the core, they actually celebrate the death of our soldiers. I guess the life of one terrorist is more important than their country men. Spineless moral cowards with the ethics of a slug.

We need new treason laws, honestly we do.

"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."

By coincidence, Wendy Sullivan over at

http://girlontheright.com/

has just today described leftard progressives in two words.

I think that the reason that the left supports anyone that is against the Western Democracies is mostly because they have become what one of their icons termed "useful idiots."

Pat them on the head, express solidarity against the hated US and these idiots will send their families into slavery without even knowing that it's happening.

Mental illness is what it is. What should be is reality, not what is.

The USA didn't win anything.

The USA only created chaos and violence in Iraq.

The Iraqi PM is openly calling for the americans to leave the place.

Iraq is doing better because of the IRAQIS, NOT THE AMERICANS.

RW wrote, "The US has demonstrated its ability at big and small wars. This is good"

Certainly the big war. Lets not forget that they did that over the objections of the joint chiefs who kept putting a Powell plan forward....300,000 to 500,000 troops.

Rumsfeld, and he is getting a new look, insisted it could be done with less and he is correct.

Problem is they believed their own press and didnt plan on the occupation or what a reasonable enemy might do in the face of overwhelming power, melt away to fight another day.

Until Petraeus was given primacy in Iraq the Generals there were fighting the old way, buttoned up etc. Petraues brought new doctrine, and he made significant progress with less than 200,000 troops.

There is a legitimate debate around whether the insurgency would have happened if there were 300,000 troops on the ground post invasion. Would a strong show of force and presence have been enough....I doubt it....you still needed the tactics and money that Petraues used. At the end of the day it needed Iraqi's themselves to help make the progress.

The second question that will be deabted forever and a day is whether keeping the Iraqi military in tact would have helped or hurt....it remains speculation.

The fact that the US could do what it did in the invasion, single front and all, spooked the heck out of a number of powers (Chinese included)

Even the US military didnt execute the way it was supposed to, they still went slower than expected, not following the doctrine of isolate and by pass, essentially Bliztkreig....They still stopped outside of Bagdhad for a few days, when doctrine said they should have pushed in no matter what. Essentially keep moving till you strike steel then blow the steel apart with your overwhelming firepower.

I am concerned about two things that are contradictory

1) That the US will reatreat back to being a big set piece battle military...Powell Doctrine left in the last century.

2) That the US will elarn all of the lessons and decide that the costs of invasion really are lower, in terms of up front requirements. Lower the costs and more invasion opportunities become available.

I agree with Powell that you really shouldnt engage without having the politics at home clarified and lined up. I disagree with him on what constitutes overwhelming force. His 500,000 troops in 1990-91 in terms of lethality is definitely down to the 100,000 - 150,000 range.

Occupation is a totally different story, in terms of tactics and manpower. But I think elements of the US military have learned what works and what doesnt. This does make them truly formidable.

The issue will be, and always will be, will the civilian control get the lesson and convey it appropriately....will the right people be in charge at the US military, those who arent just interested in big capital spend and large battles.

Rumsfeld made lots of mistakes, but will likely be remembered for having signifcantly remade and retooled the US military in a positive way.

Lets hope the masters, the civilians in charge, dont squander, misuse, or degrade that retooled military.

"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."

Many people who opposed the war in Iraq opposed it precisely because it was unnecessary for battling 'the forces of Islamic fascism.' Achieving that latter goal would have meant staying focused on Afghanistan back in 2003, rather than diverting critical military resources towards toppling a crippled dictatorship that was of no immediate foreign policy threat to anyone. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups followed the US into Iraq, not the other way around.

Now, it appears that the US is once again following al Qaeda back into Afghanistan, where this fight should have played out all along.

QE,

Thats the argument, and it is a legitimate point of view.

What it doesnt address is that sanctions were collapsing and the situation highly dynamic. The oil for food scandal revealed how rotten the sanctions regime had become and how bought in were certain elements of the Russian, German, Franch and to some degrees British elites were to Saddam.

The counter argument is what was the US to do as sanctions collapsed and Saddam escaped to new power....imagine him with 140 a barrel oil???

Now I am not a fan of wars based on what if's. You need better evidence than they had and the reality is that life isnt a game of risk therefore you really do need keep your population on side.

This will get me in trouble around here, but maintaining the high ground in a democracy is probably a requirement. This may mean you need to wait for the other guy to actually take a swing at you. Think about how united everyone was, repeat was, over Afghanistan. It was the source of the attack. Unfortunately, the population, or at least the elites and the left have regrouped and are opposing even "the good war".

So I agree that Afghanistan has been ignored, not just by the US but by other Nato allies who havent pulled their weight in a NATO battle...thinking Germany, Italy and France in particular.

The Brits will be there, the Dutch have done a great job, the French will be there (quietly though, likely lots of French special ops there now) and Canada. The Germans, and to a lesser extent the Italians really are the laggards here. Had they contributed their weight then maybe the battle wouldnt be where it is.

Canada has esentially fought a strong holding and pinning action buying time while the US and Brits regroup and redeploy. It is appreciated in the right circles and quite frankly has been superbly. We lack the troops to take it further, at least without doing an unsustainable full deployment.

Going to US politics for a second. Obama has boxed himself in with his statements on Pakistan....he may be forced to act, whether its wise or not, to ensure he means what he says. I am all for getting the camps, but you need to give yourself time and resources to do it right, which may be indirect.

The nice thing about the Taliban is they still seem to be suckers for the big battle. If the US can suck them into a big battle then its to their advantage. I suspect once troop levels rise further this will be the tactic. thos Forward Operating Bases will be used as bait and honeytraps.

Anyway, original point...while I acknowledge your argument I think there are loose threads in that scenario that people dont get held to account on. It is clearly a path not taken so we will never know, but the situtation isnt as tidy as some would describe it.

Meanwhile, millions of Muslims have been allowed to immigrate to Europe and North America since 9/11. Forget Iraq and Afghanistan, the leftist-Islamist alliance is winning where it counts--here in the West.

In Iraq, the Americans achieved an incredible turn-around in a very short period of time. It is likely that Gen. Petraeus will end up being regarded as one of the greatest military minds the U.S. has produced. His counter-insurgency success will be studied for generations to come.

The real battle against Islamic Fascism was and remains in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe it will take longer and ultimately prove a much tougher fight. The Taliban/al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan complicate matters enormously.

I think its great that life is improving in Iraq, but to simply recreate the stability that was already there before the US moved in, is hardly cause for celebration. Yes, it was at the helm of Saddam, a tyrant. But before we go and start giving this new government a lot of credit, lets keep in mind that they have yet to establish a record on human rights. Corruption wasn't and isn't a Saddam thing. It's an endemic issue in the nation's governance. The new leadership may very well cling to power in the same ways. We also now have a more pronounced islamic theocracy than we did before. That's a point that is lost on a lot of people. For all Saddam's faults, one thing that boded well for us under his dictatorship was his secularism. With Kate being so intent on hammering down the point that Islam is a threat to the world, I find it odd that she's declaring victory when the governance focus in Iraq revolves around satisfying repressed Islamic interests. Further to all this, as we can see from the Palestinian territory, democracy does not equal allies, or western friendly governments. This new government could quite easily become cozy with Iran and has already shown signs of doing so.

And if I may say...what unnecessary gutter language in the original post!?... "pathetic wastes of skin". Take a pill, Kate. There are intelligent people in all spheres, with honest convictions. Learn how to wear another's hat before taking the easy route and assuming that beliefs contrary to your own must be rooted in malicious interests. Christ.

"The Taliban/al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan complicate matters enormously."

Not as long as the NATO forces are willing to keep bombing the crap out of them....
see my previous posts ...

Heaping scorn on the willfully oblivious, immoral, and self-righteously hedonistic lemming class is a categorical imperative.

Nicely done, Kate, although “pathetic wastes of skin” borders on the Shaidlesque.

Iraq - RBI
Afghanistan - 3rd base
Iran - up to bat
Syria - on deck
Pakistan/Saudi Arabia - in the bullpen

Those "pathetic wastes of skin" are your neighbors, the people you work with, your fellow country men. Having different political convictions doesn't make you a bad human being. The average citizen doesn't care about politics to the same extent that the people here do. They still may have varying viewpoints on the world, but they don't use it as a means for self identity. I play ball with a bunch of guys who sit on the spectrum form far left to far right and somehow we manage to get along great. Who would have thunk, eh Kate? I think they're all great people. Funny how Kate lives in constant envy of America, but one thing she doesn't try and emulate is the discourse in their political system around decreasing partisanship where possible. You frequently hear Republicans and Democrats talking about crossing party lines in the interests of Americans. A lot of it is rhetoric and posturing, but it does happen as evidenced in the ability to vote your conscience without fear of repercussions in congress. While there is obviously a correlation between GOP and Dem initiatives, the vote is never completely tied to party lines, at least in the house. They should be commended for that and we should embrace it more. Both Obama and McCain plan to have members of opposite parties in their cabinets. Great idea in my mind. How often do you hear Canadian leaders talking about working together to get stuff done? Our politics are so divisive and standoffish. I acknowledge the irony in saying that Kate perpetuates this divisiveness.

"But, I truly don't know how you face yourselves in the mirror."

Kate, spare everyone your self-righteous indignation. Everyone here knows you couldn't care less about the fate of the Iraqi people. You're only interested in victory in Iraq so you can use it as ammunition to further trash the "left." Call it Left Derangement Syndrome.

Stephen:

Good posts, both of them. Thank you.

what the bright lites ( those against the Iraqi war) fail to see is the strastegic importance of Iraq in the greater mideast arena. It drives a wedge between Iran and Syria, it gives some security to Kawait and Saud Arbia, it cuts off some of the meddling in the west bank. Therefor with saddam's support for Palistinian terrorists gone, and a hurdle to Iran's agression there is a far better chance of peace breaking out than the was before the fall of saddam.

I think that history will eventually recognize this and Bush, much like R Regan, will be seen in a positive lite.

If you are dead wrong, you are dead wrong. Having both sides in government is not good if one half is just stupid. Someone like Obama, who thinks that radical Islam should be negotiated with is an idiot. A waste of skin if you like. I personaly believe he is intelligent enough to know you can't accomplish anything by speaking to evil, but he is political enough to lie about it until elected, like most liberals.

sounds just about right to me, gym.

Steve, lotta words, pretty much all hogwash.

Frank: "Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians [and leftards] alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked. " Quit trying to speak for Kate. You can't.

"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?