Iranian government
Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, reported last week that the Iranian government is using Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group, to train Iraqi terrorists in killing American servicemen. According to the General, Iran is funding this training to the tune of $3 million a month at three camps located near Tehran where the Iraqi’s receive instruction in the use of mortars, rockets and other deadly tools of terror.
The fanatics in Tehran have concluded that they can use these proxies to kill American troops without fear of retaliation. It is time for us to restore that fear.
The fact that the Iranian government is sponsoring similar terrorist operations in Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan makes it obvious that pulling the troops out of Iraq is not a solution.
The objective is deterrence and the best hope is that diplomacy can achieve the goal. However, diplomacy is not like to be effective unless it is back up by a credible threat of force. Credible means two things: first, we have to mean it and second, they have to believe it.
This letter has not been edited.
"The fact that the Iranian government is sponsoring similar terrorist operations in Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan makes it obvious that pulling the troops out of Iraq is not a solution."
Fact? Citation?
Where's Palestine?
Posted by on July 13, 2007 02:14 PMIran meddleing? Didn't we meddle in the Afghan and Russian spat. We gave weapons to the Afghans so they could vaporize the Russians. The Russians never threatened to invade the USA, as a result of us giving the Afghans weapons. The Afghans have returned the favor however, by using their left-over weapons against our American troops.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 13, 2007 03:54 PMSorry Jimmy, but there's been no conclusive evidence presented that Iran is doing any such thing.
Or can you provide that evidence?
Or is your book of mythology telling you we should kill more people who present no threat to us?
Posted by Charles B on July 13, 2007 04:17 PMThe military in Iraq IS saying this very thing Charles B. Who should we believe, them or you? Have you been to Iraq lately? Is this why your scared of wire taps?
Posted by KW on July 13, 2007 04:32 PMThose Iranians are a thankless bunch. Bush gets rid of their main enemy for them and they don't even thank him. Maybe they are mad at Bush because he can't seem to get rid of their other enemy, al Queda. Just whose side is Bush on, Iran or al Queda?
Posted by Truth on July 13, 2007 06:16 PMToday, on NPR, (yes I know, boo, hiss, shout me down) it was discussed that the terrorists fighting the Lebanese army in Lebanon, were trained in, you guessed it, Iraq.
They trained fighting our troops, who shouldn't`t have even been there. Now they are seasoned fighters
Posted by on July 13, 2007 06:58 PMHey Jim,
Great letter.
You've drawn more fire than a burka in a synagogue.
You know what they say, you can tell a lot about a man by who his enemies are.
You're a good man Jim Jones.
Unknown at 2.14 pm
If you have a genuine interest you can easily acquaint yourself with the relationship between the Iranian government, Hezbollah and Hamas with a little googeling.
If you don't have a genuine interest, then there's really no point in educating you.
I will, however, help you with the location of Palestine. You will find that research a bit of a challenge:
It's just west of Mesopotamia
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 11:19 AMkw,
It is instructive that
Many people who post here have no difficulty convincing themselves that President Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD but lied to the American people so he could invade Iraq to get the oil that would enrich his buddies.
And yet these same people can find no link beteween the Iranian government and terrorist organizations operating throughtout the middle east as is reported daily.
This phenomenon can be described as studied ignorance.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 11:27 AMskeptical,
Thanks for the kind words. Telling the truth is usually a thankless task on the page as you well know.
But then the truth doesn't tell istelf does it? Somebody has to say it.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 11:32 AMJames - True. But to admit such a connection would lend credence to what the Bush admin has been saying. The Bush-haters can't allow anything positive to happen with regards to Iraq. To do so would require an acknowledgement of errors in their judgement.
And I'm afraid that just ain't gonna happen.
Look at how they already ignore the current shinnanigans going on in congress. Some even defend it.
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 11:37 AMUnknow at 6.58 pm
You must have missed the bit on NPR about the fact that the terrorist group operating to undermine democracy in Lebanon call themeselves Hezbollah.
They are armed and trained by the Iranian government primarily through their puppet state of Syria.
Lebanon is also vital to our interest because the Lebanese are also trying to establish up a democratic government which is, by definition, a threat to the Mullahs in Iran.
A democratic Lebanon along with a democratic Iraq combined with a democratic Israel would make it all but impossible for the Iranian Mullahs to continue to sponsor terrorism in the middle east.
If you would like to learn about the struggle in Lebanon you should google the "Cedar Revolution."
You will find that more eductational then listening to NPR.
But then most things are.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 11:46 AMKW
Correct.
The unfortunate truth is that Democrats are heavily invested is seeing us fail in Iraq. They seem to view the success of Prateus strategy as a politcal defeat for themselves. This current state of the Democrat party is damaging to all Americans.
The party of Clinton, Pelosi and Reid is obvioulsy not the party of FDR, Truman and JFK.
Most of what I posted in my original letter came from Senator Joe Lieberman in an article published in the Wall Street Journal.
It says a lot there is no place in the modern Democrat Party for Sen. Lieberman.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 11:58 AMJames - Maybe Joe will run as an independant for pres. He's worth considering to me. The partisan dems here seem to bash him quite a bit so I count that in his favor.
If Thompson runs, I'm pretty sure he'll do it as an independant also.
So far I haven't found a rep or dem candidate I like. And if the dems keep to their current tone and rhetoric, it could very well be an ind that gets the nod from voters next time around.
We shall see...
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 12:06 PMKW,
It is interesting the Joe has said he will not endorse any candidate until the two parties have made their selection.
He has disavowed any interest in running himself but we should think carefully about whoever he endorses.
All the major Republicans are better candidates then all the major Democrats.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 12:22 PMJames,
Since you are clearly well educated enough to know the difference, what does writing "Democrat party" instead of the proper name "Democratic" accomplish except proving that you are an a$$hole who relishes any opportunity to antagonize his opponents at the expense of reasoned debate?
Posted by on July 14, 2007 01:50 PM"All the major Republicans are better candidates then all the major Democrats.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 12:22 PM"
Jones, you forgot to cite chapter and verse. Surely that is in the bible somewhere.
Posted by Truth on July 14, 2007 02:29 PMPartially educated
Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. You are a party of Democrats, hence you are a member of the Democrat Party.
The fact that this annoys you demonstrates that liberals are all appearance and no substance.
Rest assured I will continue to advocate the correct usage. Your annoyance alone is an amusing bonus that is sufficient of itself.
I always appreciate the opportunity for reasoned debate.
Come on James. Can't they be the Democrat-hick party and the other be the Repub-lickin' party?
Posted by KW on July 14, 2007 05:17 PMKW
You can all them whatever you like but I'd be careful about insulting liberals and religious fanatics - they're not known for tolerance.
Posted by James Jones on July 14, 2007 05:35 PMDear fully educated a$$hole Mr. Jones:
What is the name of a certain political party in the United States—not the one which controls the executive and judicial branches of the federal government but the other one, which doesn’t? The question is a small one, to be sure: a minor irritation, a wee gnat compared to such red-clawed, sharp-toothed horrors as the health-care mess and the budget deficit, to say nothing of Iraq and Lebanon. But it has been around longer than any of them, and, annoyingly, it won’t go away.
Last year, the gnat was buzzing at a high altitude. An e-mail from none other than “President George W. Bush,” arriving prior to the mid-term election in millions of in-boxes, hinted strongly at where the Commander-in-Chief stands on the name issue. To wit:
The Democrat Party has a clear record when it comes to taxes.
And:
Nothing threatens our hard-won reforms and economic prosperity more than a Democrat victory this November.
And:
The difference is clear: if you want the government in your pocket, vote Democrat.
An alternative view is that it’s called the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself takes this view, and many nonpartisan authorities agree. The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun “Democratic Party” as “One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.” (It defines “Democrat n” as “A Democratic Party member” and “Democratic adj” as “Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party,” but gives no definition for—indeed, makes no mention of—“Democrat Party n” or “Democrat adj”.) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points. The broader literate public also comes down on the “Democratic” side, as indicated by frequency of usage. A Google search for “Democratic Party” yields around forty million hits. “Democrat Party” fetches fewer than two million.
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, à la terming Israel “the Zionist entity.” And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.
The history of “Democrat Party” is hard to pin down with any precision, though etymologists have traced its use to as far back as the Harding Administration. According to William Safire, it got a boost in 1940 from Harold Stassen, the Republican Convention keynoter that year, who used it to signify disapproval of such less than fully democratic Democratic machine bosses as Frank Hague of Jersey City and Tom Pendergast of Kansas City. Senator Joseph McCarthy made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults, which served to dampen its popularity for a while. There was another spike in 1976, when grumpy, growly Bob Dole denounced “Democrat wars” (those were the days!) in his Vice-Presidential debate with Walter Mondale. Growth has been steady for the last couple of decades, and today we find ourselves in a golden age of anti-“ic”-ism.
In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com, which blue-pencils Associated Press dispatches to de-“ic” references to the Party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. (The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure.) The respectable conservative journals of opinion sprinkle the phrase around their Web sites but go light on it in their print editions. William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began.
Dear Joe McCarthy used to do that, and received a rebuke from this at-the-time 24-year-old. It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided. Granted there are diffculties, as when one desires to describe a “democratic” politician, and is jolted by possible ambiguity.
But English does that to us all the time, and it’s our job to get the correct meaning transmitted without contorting the language.
The job of politicians, however, is different, and among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book—it’s entitled “Words That Work”—and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of “ic”s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.
In days gone by, the anti-“ic” tic tended to be reined in at the Presidential level. Ronald Reagan never used it in polite company, and George Bush père was too well brought up to use the truncated version of the out party’s name more than sparingly. Not so Bush fils—and not just in e-mails sent to the Party faithful, which he obviously never reads, let alone writes. “It’s time for the leadership in the Democrat Party to start laying out ideas,” he said a while back, using his own personal mouth. “The Democrat Party showed its true colors during the tax debate,” he said a few months before that. “Nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for actually getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program,” he said a week before that. What he meant is anybody’s guess, but his bad manners were impossible to miss. Hard as it is to believe from this distance in time, George W. Bush came to office promising to “change the tone.” That he has certainly done. But, as with so much else, it hasn’t worked out quite the way he promised.
Posted by on July 15, 2007 12:18 PM
My Grandmother never used the word "Democrat" when children where in the house. Show would use "ba***rds" instead.
You should consider my use of the term "Democrat Party" as a polite euphemism for the language I learned from Granny.
You're pretty thin-skinned considering the language you use when addressing strangers in public.
Posted by James Jones on July 15, 2007 01:02 PMAnn. 12:18. Nice cut and paste job! Would you mind posting your source so I can review the entire document? I would appreciate it.
Posted by carl on July 15, 2007 03:52 PMTo the long poster. From now on I will say I belong to the "Democrat Party" and others belong to the "Republic Party"and this way we are on equal footing.
Like blacks call each other N----, and take the sting out of the word, we can call ourselves what we want and JJ will have to find a more mature amusing bonus for himself.
It takes two to make an insult, one to give it, and one to accept it.
Don`t accept it, turn it around and use it.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 16, 2007 04:50 PM