A Soldier Speaks

SIL forwarded this short YouTube video to me, and I felt it was very powerful. I replied "that's amazing" to her in the middle of the video... and almost felt stupid for sending it so soon, because the end is so much more so. Please watch it.

Terror Attack in Israel, Iraq, & The Israel Lobby

A few must/interesting reads for this morning:

• A Palestinian took control of a bulldozer on Rechov Yaffa (Jaffa Road) in Jerusalem, tipping over a bus and crushing several cars, killing four people before either civilians or non-uniformed policemen got up onto the bulldozer and shot him dead. A BBC reporter was right there and got much of the detail. (Hat tip: Fausta) (Link to YouTube video of them stopping the terrorist here, from Israeli TV [starting at 2:28] - thanks Moshe.)
  
• The Wall Street Journal has a good editorial discussing the sudden flipping of Barack Obama from the left to the right on a number of issues, and predicts (as many have been doing) that he will do the same regarding the war in Iraq after his upcoming visit to the region. One could view this in any number of ways, good and bad, but I'll discuss that at another time.
• I stumbled on this piece in Gawker which was surprisingly excellent, titled The Video The Jewish Cabal Doesn't Want You To See. It's about the so-called Israel lobby and its "power", and it makes great points in a somewhat amusing way.
  

The Times' Timing

First: Chana writes about a soldier she knew who was killed in Iraq. Baruch Dayan Emes.

Akiva has a very interesting post up at BeyondBT worth reading: Ultra Orthodoxy: Not So Inclusive Yet.

Finally, there's a lot of commentary regarding the New York Times piece suggesting Presidential hopeful John McCain is guilty of infidelity; it's a rather weak piece overall, giving no backup to any claims other than a few people thinking that their relationship had an appearance of looking like it could be inappropriate, and this will probably be a short-lived story overall. What I found interesting, however, was the note that McCain had refused interviews [presumably about this story] since December.

I'm rather curious as to why the Times is publishing this story now, when there's so little substance in it, and not back in December. Was there new information gleaned since then? It doesn't sound like it. Most of the story is about events between 8 and 21 years ago. Certainly, the Times favors Democratic candidates in the long run over any Republican - but of the Republicans, the Times would be least dismayed by John McCain, viewed as the most 'left' of all the major candidates. Had this story come out in December or January, there is little doubt that it would have negatively impacted McCain in his race against Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and whomever else; and at this point, it helps elevate either Democratic candidate by keeping McCain from moving ahead nationally while they continue to duke it out.

Granted, it isn't as if the Times was sitting on this for 6 months and running it at the height of election season; but I'd be curious how long they normally hold similar stories, and why they held this one and then published it now. Were they still fact-finding? If so, that's fine. If not... that's questionable.

Arkansas & Baghdad

RebAbe points us to a really nice piece - check it out.

It's been a busy week here (notice the lack of posts), and it feels like busy season has already begun... and now I have to get out of here before I get stuck in the city. Wishing everyone a wonderful Shabbos, and to all those attending the Raggedy SerandEz Shabbaton*... we can't wait to see y'all!!

Have a great Shabbos!!

* If anyone feels like listing the other dozen names for this weekend, feel free. :P

Supporting Hypocrisy

This is bewildering to me, and I'm curious what people think about it, particularly the many readers who lean to the left on the war in Iraq.

A troop of Boy Scouts is wondering why their donation boxes meant for troops in Iraq were thrown out of polling stations last week.

Election officials ordered the removal of donation boxes set up by a troop of Cambridge Boy Scouts of America during last Tuesday’s municipal election.

The boxes were set up inside the 33 polling stations around the city to collect donations for soldiers serving overseas in the war in Iraq.

Marsha Weinerman, executive director of the city’s Election Commission, said the boxes were removed after a resident complained to commission workers about their implied “pro-war” message.

I don't get this. Is supporting donations to troops somehow "pro-war"? (Wouldn't that mean not supporting them through donations is "anti-war"?) This seems ridiculous. Supporting troops, sending them products, donating items to make their stay in Iraq easier... these are all things that are completely unrelated to politics, are they not? Regardless of one's political views, troops from this country are serving in Iraq. Supporting them is a wonderful gesture, and will show them that people here care for their safety and well-being. Sending them gifts is not making a statement about the war; it is making a statement about our troops. It doesn't somehow keep them there longer or change the politics of this country.

Am I missing something?

A Moral Dilemma

I've been alternatively too busy or too lazy to blog lately, but a recent e-mail has me thinking. If someone would tell you right now that we could in the next 5 years:

• Remove Ahmadenijad from power in Iran;
• Establish a democratic government in its place;
• Have over 2/3 of the country participating in national elections;
• Have a somewhat unstable, but growing economy that allowed for a much better lifestyle than currently exists;
• Perhaps bring down gas prices somewhat;
• Reduce the risk of terror attacks within the United States;
• Overall reduction in [other] worldwide terror, but increase in terror in Iran;
• Dramatically hurt Palestinian terrorist groups, particularly in terms of funding;
• and perhaps more...
  

but it would cost the lives of about 3,000 US soldiers and $500 billion, would you still do it? Would you need all of those factors, or would only some be enough?

Winning A War

Possibly the point most quickly forgotten with all that has happened in Iraq the past few years was that any reasonable person understood that this was a war that - while the original "war" portion would end quickly - would lead to a state which would take many, many years to pass. A state of infighting, of rebuilding, of terrorism, and the like.

So, for the past number of years, we've been inundated with only one side of what is happening in Iraq by our news media. The AP's head stated something along the lines of it is the job of the media to help end warfare - rather than report the news. You have Democrats saying incredibly stupid things, like this in the WaPo: (via Best of the Web)

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

As James Taranto noted,

"What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be "a real big problem for us"?"

What does it say? Simply put, that people have their agendas, and to many, it is more important that the war end no matter the long-terms costs so long as it destroys the President and his party in the short-term. That's why the already much-discussed op-ed in the New York Times earlier this week was so shocking - and so incredibly nice to see. I think it's quite possibly the most important thing the Times has done all year, because it directly contradicts just about everything they have been reporting for months on end. It discusses the great success the US and Iraq have had against the terrorists, particularly since the surge President Bush ordered a number of months ago. Written by two people who are no fans of the war or President Bush, it truthfully discusses the progress being made in so many areas. It basically argues that this is actually working, and we just need to have a little more patience to keep seeing it - exactly what was cautioned by so many 4-1/2 years ago.

Hopefully, not only will these successes continue, but the stupid and petty partisan politics that would rather have us be unsuccessful so certain people can come into power will end. It is shameful that we have politicians who are de facto rooting for our troops to be driven home by a terrorist army, even if that is not what they believe in their hearts. It is more important to so many to try and discredit Gen. Petraeus and President Bush and the idea that we might actually be succeeding - simply so that political points can be scored and troops brought home, no matter the cost. Senator Barack Obama - a leading Democratic Presidential candidate - essentially shrugged off a possible genocide in Iraq, saying such a thing is not our responsibility.

There is but one focus on the left: Pull back the troops, declare failure, and blame that failure on President Bush. It is becoming increasingly hard to understand their motives in any other way.