Need help responding to local right-winger in newspaper blog

[Altean Wanderer]

Fellow DUers! There's now a blog connected to the LTTE page at my local paper in New Hampshire, and I often find myself arguing with this guy (below), who, though an extreme reich-winger, is articulate in a Nazi sort of way. I'd like to respond with a few "zingers" addressing the points about Iraq and Iran he makes below. Thanks much for your help! His words now:

David Hunt -

As the Surge HAS worked - Leftist tripe to the contrary - violence has fallen. As violence in Iraq has fallen, with a lower body count, the reporting of news in Iraq has likewise collapsed. Almost as if the only news worth reporting was dead Americans.... and not their accomplishments.

To cite two examples:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2007/12...

http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/05/24/hello-...

Has their been a recent upswing by the remenants of Al Qaeda? Sure. Why doesn't anyone on the Left question the terrorists' timing? Just as the Left in the US is gearing up to protest the 5th anniversary of our attack on Iraq and it's monsterous leader, the terrorists are attempting to gear up the death toll.

Coincidence? I think not. The Al Qaeda leader in northern Iraq was quoted as saying, in an interview with a reporter from the Qatari daily Al-'Arab the Al-Qaeda
that they have been "instructed to focus our attacks... on the eve of the U.S. election campaign." Read that again: Al Qaeda in Iraq plans operations with the US election in mind.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the internet news - as opposed to the pablum in the MSM - has seen the enormous progress made in Iraq over the last year.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/20/ira...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar...

So what could it possibly mean that Al Qaeda in Iraq intends operations with the US elections in mind? Or with Petraeus' April briefing in mind?

We've seen this before. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, was interviewed in 1995. One of his notable quotes was "Tet was designed to influence American public opinion."

http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm

With Walter Cronkite's misrepresentation of Tet as an American defeat when, in fact, General Giap of North Vietnam admitted that Tet had been a military defeat; as Tin recounted "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?...

http://www.i-served.com/v-v-a-r.org/VietnamAndT...

Lenin's phrase of "useful idiots", as applied to Communist sympathizers during the Cold Wa (WW III), applies here too. Al Qaeda knows that the only way they can win in Iraq is if they help the Left reprise their engineering of America's defeat. And the Left is only too eager to help.

David Hunt (second post on Iran)

Iran has referred to the Jews as "bacteria", talked about it being acceptable to take mass casualties to the "world if Islam" if it means wiping Israel off the map, supports/sponsors/arms terrorists launching missiles into Israel, is supplying weapons to terrorists in Iraq, and is pursuing nuclear materials which anyone with three brain cells can't possibly believe is purely civilian...

And you're worried the Bush et al will start a war? How much more likely will a war be WHEN - given the gutless cowardice of the Left and Europe towards Iran's moves to acquiring nuclear weapons - Iran does have them.

Europe and its -philes here in the US think that diplomacy is ALWAYS the answer. Well, diplomacy needs a back-up plan, and that's the military. Sorry peaceniks, but sometimes holding your hand out in peace gets it taken off because by showing - as Fallon did against current policy - that the US will NEVER use force undercuts efforts to get Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons.

I guess that's too subtle, nuanced, and aware of actual events in Iran for you.

David Hunt - third post

The probability of your Bush/Cheney/Israel tripartite attacking Iran is highly unlikely at best regardless of the resignation of Adm. Fallon (who by the way does not decide strategic policy). The decision as to whether or not there will be military operations against Iran is the prerogative of the President and Congress, not a theater commander. Adm. Fallon's job is to advise the President as needed and execute operations as directed. If the President does not heed his advice, the good Adm. can resign, and then voice his opinions as a civilian. Below are some interesting observations from the Christian Science Monitor on the Fallon situation.

"The fact is that had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. "We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq." Others said Adm. Fallon was pushed to resign. "No matter what said , we know for a fact Admiral Fallon was fired," said a former senior Defense official who works closely with military officials in the region. "We have kids — soldiers — getting killed because Iran, Syria and other foreign fighters are coming across the border into Iraq, and yet Fallon was unwilling to do anything to hold accountable."

You don't seem to realize that the fact of the matter is that we have been in a low-level conflict with Iran since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Iran's proxy is Hezbollah, which until the appearance of OBL and Al Qaeda, had been responsible for killing more Americans than any other terorrist group. Iran is currently providing men, material, and finances to Shiite insurgents in Iraq who are killing and wounding US service-members.

Are you trying to say that Iran is not a threat in the region and that any military action against Iran at any time would be unwarranted? And what exactly would "BushCo" be "getting away" with?

[VP505]

1. Is that the same Hunt

that is a retired Army Colonel sometime seen on TV as a so called Military Expert commentator? I think sometimes he shows up on O'Rieley for comment, I could be wrong about where I have seen him but I am sure if its the same Hunt I have seen him on TV.

[Altean Wanderer]

3. I don't think it is...

I think this guy has a computer consulting business in southern NH.

[Altean Wanderer]

2. Self kick and explanation

I know it's long post - sorry - but I'm going out for a 2 hour peace vigil in "cold rain and snow" and that's why I posted this guy's long right-wing posts here. I honestly would like to see just a few counterpoints that I can zing him with later. I have some of my own, but the more minds the better.

Thanks.

[Birthmark]

4. First off

The "Surge" has NOT worked. Let's review the purposes of the Surge:

"The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html

#1 Clearly has not happened to any large degree. FAIL
#2 Is a partial success, but it was mostly the US protecting the population
#3 Doesn't appear to have worked to any permanent degree.
#4 Is probably a legitimate win for the WH.
#5 FAIL
#6 FAIL

So, out of the six stated goals for the policy, half are outright failures, one is clear success, and two are partial successes. I'd give the policy a 2 out of 6. If we're grading on a curve that steep, then there really was no point in the surge. We should have just claimed success with what he had since it's so close to what we have now.

[Altean Wanderer]

5. Thanks much Birthmark - excellent summary of all the reasons for the surge

I hadn't seen them compiled quite like that before. Good points.

I will use these in my upcoming post on the paper's blog.

[mdmc]

6. the surged has worked

far better then the rummy on the cheap war.

It just needs to work for a couple more decades and we will be in the clear.