BREAKING: Chuck Hagel is calling it quits

Omaha.com ^ | 9/8/07 | JAKE THOMPSON

[Dqban22]

Petraeus vs. Hagel (RINO Alert)
American Thinker ^ | May 1, 2007 | Ray Robison

Gen. David Petraeus recently returned from Iraq to brief the leaders of our government about the war there. Perhaps most notably, he took direct aim at the “Iraq is in a civil war” mantra of the media and Democratic leaders by stating that “80 percent to 90 percent of the suicide attacks” - the spectacular car bombings racking up the horrific fatalities - are carried out by foreign fighters who are al Qaeda members or affiliated with al Qaeda.
At nearly the same time, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) sat down at an interview with Robert Novak for the Washington Post. The Senator just returning from another trip to Iraq brings bad news. He sides with Democrats in determining the war in Iraq is a losing effort against sectarian violence with US forces stuck in the middle. The Senator claims that al Qaeda is only responsible for “maybe 10 percent” of the violence. He says “Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today.” By contrast, General Petraeus says “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.”

This condition of contrasting views is aggravated by the fact that the Senator is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Which begs the question: where is Senator Hagel getting the military intelligence to form his opinion if not from the senior uniformed military commander of the war? Who is telling him that al Qaeda is not the central opponent or the leader of the anti-Iraqi forces? Did he derive his viewpoint from military briefings? Or does it come from other, more political, considerations?

The Senator doesn’t say in his Novak interview. In fact, he presents almost no specific information to support his views. But we can evaluate the claims of both men based on free press and military reporting from Iraq.

American Forces Press Service (AFPS) reports that a senior al Qaeda leader who was closely associated with Usama bin Laden was recently transferred to Gitmo after being picked up some time late last year. He was captured while traveling to Iraq to direct the al Qaeda efforts there in late 2006. (He is also a former Iraqi army officer, a fact that fits nicely with the research that ties Saddam and al Qaeda together in my new eBook, Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the global Islamic jihad movement and international terrorism.)

But perhaps six or seven months ago is not timely enough, and the Senator was talking about more recent developments. Did al Qaeda pack up and leave Iraq since then? Dated April 29th, 2007 AFPS reports that twenty one al Qaeda terrorists were taken into custody in actions against that terrorist network.

Our friends certainly think Iraq is a central front for al Qaeda. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer just responded to another horrific car bombing by stating,

“This is a deliberate attempt by al-Qaeda to incite sectarian violence in Iraq and it’s very important that the international community understands what al-Qaeda’s tactics are.”

The Iraqi government seems to think al Qaeda is the chief opponent. It worries in this Reuters article that the political infighting in the US is being exploited by al Qaeda.

Even al Qaeda seems to think al Qaeda is responsible for the worst of the violence as evidenced by dozens of recent news article - such as this one from the AP, which is also notable because it refers to al Qaeda as an “insurgent group”. Just search the phrase “al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility” under Google News and you will find dozens of references to al Qaeda claiming responsibility for the worst attacks.

It would appear that our military, our allies, the Iraqi government and even al Qaeda itself believes that Iraq is the central front in the war against al Qaeda. At the other end of the spectrum is the Democratic leadership and Senator Chuck Hagel, oh yes, and certain media outlets, which insist we have set off a civil war with al Qaeda responsible for a minor share of violence.

Given the opportunity the Senator has had to influence the review of prewar intelligence, it is more than a little disconcerting that he has ignored our own military intelligence, allies and the admission of the enemy, in determining his stance.

Ray Robison is co-author of the book Both in One Trench, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

[BillyBoy]

>> Nope, sorry. Red is Communist rodent. Blue is Republican and Conservative. Stuff that post-2000 media newsspeak bull$hit propaganda. <<

Yep. It's very annoying to see conservative group embrace the MSM definitions. Here in Illinois, one newspaper headline boomed "Topinka Can Turn Illinois Red". Yep. She'd make it "red" if she'd won, alright. Freakin' marxist.

Also, some goofy "conservative" group (that I will decline to name) has come up with an idiotic plan to put the state back in Republican column by selling armbands that read "THINK RED". (Makes as much sense as the libs trying to cure AIDS by wearing ribbons).

10 zillion armbands sold and Illinois is still as communist as ever. I certainly do "Think Red" when I look at their ridiciulous armband idea.

Whenever I post election maps here on FR, I stick with uselectionatlas.org because they continue to use Commie RAT Red and Republican Blue (plus Green Party Green and appropiately Libertarian "yellow")

Now THIS is my ideal America:

[RetiredArmy]

Good. Now maybe the people of Nebraska will get off their asses and elect a decent, conservative, senator and get that person to Sodom on the Potomac.

[Heartland Mom]

THANK GOD!! The Omaha World Herald called Hagel a “maverick,” but he was more like a loose cannon. For all his RINO weaknesses, at least he had the common sense to see the handwriting on the wall and realize that Nebraskans were fed up with his brand of representation and wouldn’t vote for him anyway.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Maybe what - 30 years ago? Sorry. The color codes for red being conservative and blue being dem have been well established now for decades -- without your permission."

Nope. 2000. Go do some research. No one with a straight face identified Conservatism with Communist Red before that, and doing it now defies all logic and reason. The Canadians don't have this bullcrap bizarro world color scheme for their parties.

[plain talk]

Nope. 2000. Go do some research. No one with a straight face identified Conservatism with Communist Red before that, and doing it now defies all logic and reason

Don't need to do any reserach as I have lived through elections going to Kennedy vs Nixon. CBS used red states for Republicans as far back as 1984 for Reagan / Mondale. I remember it well. Its true that not all media used that scheme until 2000 which is what you are probably referring to. But the red state = Republican has been used for decades and eventually prevailed. So get over it. Now is now and then was then.

[Trajan88]

Maybe Tom Osborne?

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Yep. It's very annoying to see conservative group embrace the MSM definitions. Here in Illinois, one newspaper headline boomed "Topinka Can Turn Illinois Red". Yep. She'd make it "red" if she'd won, alright. Freakin' marxist."

Bingo. As I said, they can stick that red where the sun don't shine.

"Also, some goofy "conservative" group (that I will decline to name) has come up with an idiotic plan to put the state back in Republican column by selling armbands that read "THINK RED". (Makes as much sense as the libs trying to cure AIDS by wearing ribbons)."

Yeah, if somebody came up to me telling me to put on a red armband for the cause of Conservatism, they'd be wearing it in Larry Craig's happy place.

"Whenever I post election maps here on FR, I stick with uselectionatlas.org because they continue to use Commie RAT Red and Republican Blue (plus Green Party Green and appropiately Libertarian "yellow")"

Dave Leip's site. That's the only one I use. Everything else looks back-asswards. I know that map you posted without clicking on properties as the 1972 Nixon-McGovern contest.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Don't need to do any reserach as I have lived through elections going to Kennedy vs Nixon. CBS used red states for Republicans as far back as 1984 for Reagan / Mondale."

So what ? One screwed up network doesn't make it so. I've got political research books, the works of Prof. Ken Mardis, and my own personal works going back well over 20 years, and I never saw any legitimate sources with a Blue=rodent, Red=GOP base. I did see a red & white color scheme (but white is difficult to use unless you have a background color, and works quite poorly on the internet).

"Its true that not all media used that scheme until 2000 which is what you are probably referring to. But the red state = Republican has been used for decades and eventually prevailed."

Yet for somebody who has been studying politics for a quarter century, I've seen only one network reference to the misguided scheme and nothing else.

"So get over it. Now is now and then was then."

Forget it. I'm not going by your media psych warfare color switcheroo newsspeak. You want to swallow the Commie Kool-aid, I'm not stopping you, but don't expect me to, pal.

[darkangel82]

Probably not. During the 1990’s, he was a Reagan-bashing liberal.

So he's another Romney?

[BillyBoy]

I'm sure you'll love this one. They have a photo on their site of McCain sporting the "THINK RED" wristband.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Quite telling.

[BillyBoy]

As you can see from above, they've used all kinds of silly color maps over the years to indicate what states were won by what party. Republicans have been blue, red, green, white, gray, yellow, you name it. The idea that RED = GOP didn't come about until the contested 2000 election, where the news channels kept tossing Florida up on the big board and came up with phrases like "red state", "dimpled chad", "butterfly ballot" and the rest of those infamous terms we'd all soon forget.

On the other hand, using "RED" or "PINK" to be synonymous with communist is a tradition that goes back decades, and like fieldmarshaldj, I intend to keep it that way. You won't find any transcripts from earlier years where people say "I think Fidel Castro is a blue"

[No Truce With Kings]

Good. Hagel gone. Now to get rid of Paul in the primary and we will have made a significant dent in the Copperhead Republicans.

[plain talk]

You want to swallow the Commie Kool-aid, I'm not stopping you, but don't expect me to, pal.

If you get your panties in a wad over such a silly thing like this I'd hate to see how you react to something of importance. :-)

The convention now is to display Republican states as "red states". Its been used for decades by some and now everyone uses it. That is how it is. You can deny reality all you want. Doesn't really matter.

My advice is to get yourself a cool one and chill. Life is just too short. I wish you well.

[T.L.Sink]

Hagel finally realized that he would probably not be reelected. He was invested in an American defeat in Iraq before Saddam’s statue was toppled; he voted for the “comprehensive” amnesty bill; he opposed tax cuts. Some RINO’s can command a following because they’re articulate and skillful politicians. But Hagel was a RINO with NO ABILITY. Good riddance!

[fieldmarshaldj]

With respect to the bottom map, the colors of blue and green in that instance don’t provide much of a stark contrast (it looks more like a contest between a Republican and a Greenie). Even the first map screams psych warfare with a red and green hue. Note associating Nixon with the negative “red” (”stop”) vs. Kennedy’s positive “green” (”go” or “forward”) and the ugly brown for VA Sen. Harry Byrd (”dirt”). People not well-versed on how you associate ideologies/candidates with colors is all a part of a psychological campaign.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"If you get your panties in a wad over such a silly thing like this I'd hate to see how you react to something of importance. :-)"

Because it isn't silly. This is all part of a deliberate effort at psychological warfare and an attempt by the media left to disassociate the long-negative color of red (the very epitome of international Marxism) from the Democrats. If you don't see that as serious, you don't get it. Politics doesn't just happen at the ballot box, and for our side to not even realize that this is part of a deliberate effort shows our own ignorance. We should've rightly rebuked this attempt when it began en masse in 2000. I surely did, and will continue to correct those that play along with aiding this media psych warfare campaign, either knowingly or unknowingly.

"The convention now is to display Republican states as "red states". Its been used for decades by some and now everyone uses it. That is how it is. You can deny reality all you want. Doesn't really matter."

Damn convention when it's wrong. If everyone jumps off a cliff, do you ? I will not be a party to it. You're a useful idiot for their cause when you defend the practice. Even more so when repeating the falsehood of "it's been used for decades" when only obscure sources has done so (CBS as a reputable source ? They're one of the worst offenders of propagating this psych warfare campaign, and that goes back a half-century).

"My advice is to get yourself a cool one and chill. Life is just too short. I wish you well."

Like I said, I'm more than happy to publicly correct those in error on the facts. We need to be united in facing down the media lies and psych warfare.

[no dems]

O.K., some of you Cornhusker Freepers give us a heads-up on who we need to root for on the GOP side. Who's the Conservative? Which of them, if any, are honorable....heterosexual....strong on National Defense and Border Security and does not spend other people's money like a crack ho?

[no dems]

I must admit that I could not understand why the GOP allowed themselves to be the “RED” Team.

Those of us from the Cold War days do NOT like anything political that is associated with “Red”.