About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Iran vs. US: Heated exchange between us and them; Iran's economy tanking

 Well, at least the Iranian envoy didn't take his shoe off and bang it on the table, but things got a little hot yesterday between us and them, according to Allah over at Hot Air. ABC News has the skinny:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the conference with an appeal for all participants to help ease his country's plight and prevent the violent conflict here from spilling over into the entire Middle East.

But the conference underscored the wide gulf between American and Iranian views over the nature of the crisis and the ways to end it.

During the talks, U.S. envoy David Satterfield pointed to his briefcase which he said contained documents proving Iran was arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

"Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq," Iran's chief envoy Abbas Araghchi shot back, according to an official familiar to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, only said that American delegates exchanged views with the Iranians "directly and in the presence of others" during talks, which he described as "constructive and businesslike."

But Labid Abbawi, a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who attended the meeting, confirmed that an argument broke out between the Iranian and American envoys. He would not elaborate.

I'd like to say again, for the record, that this was a bad idea. Syria and Iran shouldn't be consulted on anything regarding stability, security, etc., in Iraq. Neither country gives a rat's patoot about Iraq. They're waiting for a collapse so they can set up Hezbollah, or some other terrorist group in that nation in the same way that the Taliban propped up al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It's nice to see that our envoy isn't backing down from the mad mullahs in Tehran and their lapdog diplomats.

On a brighter note, though, it seems that Iran's having some financial difficulties, of late. In fact, according to the Independent, they're economy is "on fire":

A complete failure to invest in refining and the hostility to the use of Western technology has ensured that Iran imports much of its refined oil from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Rather bizarrely, petrol has recently been rationed in some instances and is subject to strict government control - a whopping 86 per cent price increase has been proposed. On current trends, Iran would cease to be a net oil exporter altogether in 2015.

This seems to be extraordinary economic mismanagement. Despite a 20 per cent increase in the national budget last year, Mr Ahmadinejad had to go back to Iran's parliament, the Majlis, six times to ask for more money. Government expenditure is extremely high and rising - a pledge to reduce budgetary dependence on oil supplements by 10 per cent each year has been thrown aside as the government has resorted to using the Oil Reserve Fund as its piggy bank. Commentators speculate that Iran has inadequate foreign currency reserves to negotiate the demands of the coming year.

In fact, the extent of government borrowing from Iranian banks is jeopardising the solidity of the Iranian banking system. The borrowing increased by nearly 50 per cent last year and this swollen government sector carries significant knock-on inflationary implications. The official target for inflation is 9.9 per cent but the current rate is thought to be at least 20 per cent, and rising. In certain foods it is closer to 40 per cent and some fresh vegetables are disappearing in Tehran.

A large part of this economic crisis is home-grown but the tightening of American sanctions must give the economic planners even greater head-aches. The US has become much more adept at using its financial muscle to persuade non-American banks to withdraw financing from its chosen enemies. This is what lay behind the Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, being caught bringing $35m across the Egyptian border into Gaza.

Now, as Allah notes, they've been down this road before, so it really doesn't faze Ahmadinejad much. But, what does it say when you start rationing gasoline? That is, aside from the obvious, which is as an oil rich nation you still haven't developed the necessary refining capabilities, and have to import oil from other countries?

Iranians are bracing themselves for a fresh round of belt tightening after their government voted to impose petrol rationing coupled with sharp rises in the price of fuel.

The rationing system will limit Iranians to 22 gallons (100 litres) of petrol a month, two full tanks for a typical family car. It is a direct result of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's adherence to an economic model, based on Iranian self-sufficiency, that has caused housing and other living costs to soar.

The basic price of petrol will rise by 25 per cent, but Iranians who need to use more than the permitted amount will be hit by rises of up to 450 per cent.

Economists predict that the knock-on effect on the average Iranian will be dramatic, with retailers expected to pass on the additional costs to consumers.

Ahmadinejad's idea at being sdelf-sustaining isn't going to work over there. It's already failing. And as long as they continue going forward with their nuclear program, they will continue to find themselves more and more isolated. It will simply get worse for them, and the worse it does get, the more outraged people will get. It's not like the government can keep honking it's people off like this. There are daily demonstrations in Iran against the mad mullahocracy.

And to answer Allah's exit question: Yes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad IS the Persian Jimmy Carter. Best he stay over there, and it'd probably be beter if we sent his twin over to live with his beloved Palestinians. Maybe they can do lunch somewhere down the road.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mike DeVine Calls Out Rudy: I Cannot Stand Idly By, And Allow Him To Go Unswered

 The "granddaddy" of election blogs has a most interesting post up regarding Rudy Giuliani. Mike DeVine, AKA "Gamecock," @ Race 4 2008 calls Rudy out:

While you’re at it, Lawyer Giuliani, also tell us your opinion of Roe vs. Wade without mentioning Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

Today is one of the greatest days in constitutional law history in the affirmation of inalienable rights. One of the greatest judges of all time, Laurence Silberman penned the 2-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
overturning gun laws in the District of Columbia that have been characterized as among the most restrictive in the nation.

The laws you happily enforced in NYC as mayor have also been so characterized.

I saw your interview last month on Hannity & Colmes when you left the script and lapsed into a reference to “respect for precedent” when responding to a question about Roe. I haven’t forgotten what less savvy and/or in the tank for you ”journalists” and commentators missed the significance of or buried to protect you.


They can’t protect you from Gamecock defending the conservative Henhouse and the US Constitution.

You are a lawyer, sir. You want to be the man that chooses lawyers to serve as judges that interpret the word “is” and the rest of the words in the U.S. Constitution.

Rather than hiding behind the robes of judges your former boss Reagan and your post-9/11 hero Bush and his dad picked, tell us your opinion of Roe and the monumental gun rights case handed down by the D.C Court of Appeals today.

Please.

We don’t care to hear you play objective TV commentator. You want us to hire you to make decisions. So tell us sir what you think of these cases.

You have told us what you think of many other cases that restricted the rights of police. On those cases you didn’t lapse into any deference to the court or Alito worship.

The DC case declares that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to protect one’s home, even if its in a big city like New York City. The case makes no distinction of such rights in big cities vs. non-big cities like you have.

What is your opinion of the Silberman opinion?

I have never owned a gun, but I, and the rest of WE THE PEOPLE own this country, and if you want to be hired, please completely answer all questions on the job application.

Indeed, WE also wish to know where he stands on those particular issues, and as yet, Mr. Giuliani has only been asked by a couple of pundits regarding his stances on Roe and gun rights. While we can understand Mr. Devine's frustration with Mr. Giuliani's past, we can also state that as Americans who are supporting his candidacy, he has answered them, thus far, to our satisfaction. Additionally, Mr. Giuliani stated the following in an recent interview with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Will he [Ted Olsen] help you pick judges if you are the president, and you’re making Supreme Court selections?

RG: He’d be one of the first people that I’d turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And it’s something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.

I am curious; what was Mr. DeVine's opinion regarding Harriet Miers nomination under President George W. Bush? There is nothing in the Charlotte Observers archives coming up about such a thing. And I only ask because if he had a problem with Miers' nomination, I can see it on credential arguments. But Ms. Miers helped President Bush vet his nominees. If Mr. Giuliani does win the nomination, and subsequently wins the presidency, what would he think of Mr. Olsen helping then President Giuliani with his nominees. It is clear from Mr. Olsen's credentials as a lawyer that he would puch originalist jurists for Mr. Giuliani. If he is as trusted as Mr. Giuliani states in that interview, then Mr. DeVine should have no antsy feelings about who Mr. Giuliani chooses.

Mr. Giuliani has made it clear that he believes in the rule of law, especially in the realm of Roe jurisprudence (or lack thereof). But he has also stated, for the record, that he believes Roe is bad law, and that the subject should be turned over to the States. And for Mr. DeVine, we remind him that that is where it was prior to the USSC decision in 1973. Mr. Giuliani has stated he believes in the States' right to determine laws and govern their people. We can side with him on that (and that comes from a pair of amateur court watchers who are incensed every time the States are trumped by the USSC and the federal courts).

Yes, we would like Mr. Giuliani to answer questions about both Roe and Parker v. District of Columbia. But what will that accomplish, truly? Both issues remain int he purview of the courts. As president he can overturn or trump neither of them. His judicial appiontments are what matters, and he has been clear as to the sorts of jurists he would choose. We would urge detractors like Mr. DeVine to calm down, and actually do some fact-finding on it. Ask him. Prompt those in the media to ask those questions. Let us find our answers. Though I doubt his detractors will appreciate his answers; most especially if he answers their concerns directly, and identifies originalists that currently sit ont he federal bench. For our part, we would not be surprised to hear a name like Luttig, Garza, Brown, or Estrada tossed out by Mr. Giuliani.

Would that then satisfy his detractors? Probably not, but it is a step int he right direction for someone like Mr. Giuliani given that he is riding a high wave of public support.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rolling up jihadis in Baghdad: Major al Qaeda-affiliated leader nailed

 "The surge isn't working." "We are planning a withdrawal by 2008." This is what the Democrats had to say this week in response to questions about Iraq. Hell, even Daniel Obey got in on the nuttiness, incorrectly believing his little resolution to "make the war nonexistent" woul dchange anything in Iraq. But the changes on the ground is what we're talking about this morning. From Hot Air and the WaPo:

A senior leader of an al Qaeda-linked group has been arrested in Iraq, state television Iraqiya said on Friday.

Iraqiya did not say whether U.S. or Iraqi troops had arrested Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, a body set up by al Qaeda's Iraq wing and other Sunni militant groups in October.

It said he was captured in the Abu Ghraib area, which is on the western outskirts of Baghdad.

U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver said he had no information on the report. Iraqi officials could not immediately be reached for comment.


The Islamic State of Iraq has claimed a string of major attacks in Iraq, including the kidnapping last week of 18 people, mostly police officers, who were subsequently shot, with photographs of the killings released on the Internet.

Earlier this week a security official said Baghdadi was among dozens of al-Qaeda militants who stormed a jail near the northern city of Mosul, freeing up to 140 prisoners, in one of the biggest prison breaks since the U.S. invasion of 2003.

As if that isn't bad enough for them, read this:

Al-Moussawi said al-Baghdadi admitted his identity, as did another "of the terrorists" who confirmed "that the one in our hands is al-Baghdadi."

LOL. Gotta love the terrorists that point fingers at one another. But seriously, we keep having success after success in the surge, and the Democrats don't want to acknowledge it. We're rolling up little jihadis all across the country, especially Baghdad and it's immediate vicinity, but that's just not good enough for the Democrats.

Their whing, and our succeses, just goes to show the nation that the Democrats refuse to admit that they're wrong, that our new plans are working, and that the president and his advisors were right to put morew troops on the ground, and change the ROEs. Since then, we've driven Sadr from Iraq, sent his Mahdi Army into hiding, or they've just gotten out of Dodge, and we are meeting with a great deal of success with the insurgents in Iraq.

Ah, but this was a lost cause, right? We had "lost the war," right? You know, if it weren't for pessimism on their side of the aisle, this nation might be a bit happier, more productive, and less apt to have our elected leaders suffer from foot-in-mough disease. But, as it is, the Democrats serve as a profound point of comedy for us.

Publius II

UPDATE: According to Allah @ Hot Air, the report is a false alarm. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was not captured by US, coalition or Iraqi forces. This capture was a bust, and likely did not capture anyone significant.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BREAKING NEWS!! DC Circuit Court Strikes Down DC Gun Ban; Ruled "Unconstitutional"

This story is breaking, or at least it broke about an hour and a half ago. The DC Circuit Court Of Appeals struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional. (Hat-Tip: Professor Glenn Reynolds, K-Lo @ The Corner, and The Volokh Conspiracy.

Neither of us have yet to read it (I am in the process of shooting Thomas all the information I have found through e-mail, and I am printing sp said information now) but we will have some thoughts on this. More than likely, those will come tomorrow or Sunday. But this is a win for Second Amendment advocates, and it now puts an issue on the table for the presidential candidates.

For the record, I agree with Professor Reynolds on this:

Perhaps the Democrats would be wise to take the issue off the table politically by passing some sort of federal legislation guaranteeing American citizens the right to own guns.

Heh. Indeed. It is their side that is most hostile to the notion that the average everyday citizen does definitively have the right own firearms.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudy Warned--"Now It's Your Turn" To Take It On The Chin

 We knew this was coming. With so many already behind him by a significant amount, Rudy Giuliani has a target on his back, and he is about to endure a crucible:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has entered the presidential race with a head of steam thanks to a remarkably positive public image among most Americans due to his performance in the wake of Sept. 11.

But his opponents say Giuliani will eventually be weighed down as GOP voters take a more comprehensive look at his record and character – and operatives for rival campaigns are making plans to give Giuliani a proper introduction to rough-and-tumble national politics

Soon, Giuliani opponents say, it will be Rudy’s turn. ...

... That “traditional process,” of course, includes the sort of deep probing and tough scrutiny that even the aggressive New York City press corps can’t match. With Giuliani, opponents believe they have ample fodder to feed to the ever-hungry media beast – for starters, three marriages and a moderate record on social issues that would seem to be anathema to conservative GOP primary voters.

Still, Giuliani’s GOP rivals are treading lightly so far and are hesitant to attack him on the record – a sign of the surprising power Giuliani has shown in the campaign’s early months.

One notable exception took place last week, when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said of the former mayor in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network: “He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun. That's a tough combination in a Republican primary." ...

... But if Giuliani’s impressive poll numbers continue, opponents will undoubtedly zero in on his potential vulnerabilities: a soap opera of a personal life, questionable business ties, a hard-charging governing style that did not suffer critics lightly and apostasy on core conservative orthodoxy.

“When you’re running for president, there is always a ‘but,’” noted a Romney adviser. “When you start looking to Rudy’s ‘but’s,’” -- issues, family life, former clients – “there’s lots of buts.” ...

... As first reported by the New York Times last weekend, Giuliani has had strained relations with his two children since a very public and very messy divorce from their mother, Donna Hanover, in 2000. The former mayor’s son, Andrew, talked to the Times and then ABC News, making painfully apparent that he would have nothing to do with his father’s campaign. Such stories remind, or inform, voters of the other side of Giuliani. But when do they start to have an impact on his numbers?

Giuliani’s descent, said an adviser to a rival GOP campaign, will begin when “he ceases to be a celebrity and starts to be more of a regular candidate.”

A regular candidate, that is, with a trove of controversial moves from his time as mayor and U.S. Attorney waiting to be re-aired.

It’s “hard to make the argument that he was a bad mayor or bad prosecutor,” the rival campaign source acknowledged, but there remains ample information to mine from his years as mayor, this person hinted. ...

... Frank Donatelli, a veteran Republican supporting McCain but not playing an active role in his campaign, likened the early relationship between Giuliani and GOP primary voters to the first torrid days of an affair where flaws are minimized or ignored.

“When you’re dating somebody, you see the best qualities in them. And let’s face it, Rudy’s a very attractive fellow.”

Still, Donatelli sees a “tough road” for Hizzoner and points to a recent Politico report about the left-leaning judges Giuliani appointed as New York mayor as indicative of the sort of pot holes that lay ahead.

“Judicial appointees really will resonate with the base,” said Donatelli, a Reaganite and former director of Young Americans for Freedom. “Conservatives believe that the whole spectrum of social issues begins with judges. If you have a demonstrably poor record there, it’s tough to overcome.” ...

... Giuliani adviser Tony Carbonetti responded to the notion that his boss can’t win over the party base by arguing that the GOP is a more diverse lot than some in the press think.

“The New York reporter mentality,” Carbonetti said, is to think “very little of the Republican primary voter.”

“What we’re seeing is that [GOP voters] are looking for a larger set of attributes. They want the picture as a whole.” Carbonetti said Giuliani will “talk to everybody” in the party and address issues like abortion, gay rights and guns as they arise, but that “it all comes down to what people want from their elected officials.”

“If its leadership, competent governance and somebody you know is going to wake up every day thinking about how he can do a better job, Rudy’s your guy.”

I bring this up because we knew this was about to happen. Romney and McCain have both come out swinging over the last week or so. Romney's comment on Rudy's pro-gay marriage stance was unfounded; a point that was quickly and quietly dismised by people in his camp. If you go on the attack, make sure your information is correct. Rudy has stated in two separate interviews (a point we made in our most recent column) that he is in favor of keeping marriage betweena man and a woman, and he has clearly opined that he is in favor of civil unions. That is a significant difference from "pro-gay marriage."

While many voters are still unaware of Rudy's personal life, a good deal of conservatives are flocking to his banner. Despite the carpings of social conservatives we have engaged in chatrooms and message forums that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I vote for someone who is pro-gun control," or "pro-choice," or "someone who is divorced," etc., a great many social conservatives are overlooking those issues. His record in New York City of restoring law and order, cutting taxes, reforming the city's welfare system, etc., will appeal to a host of people. In a Washington Times piece yesterday written by Stephan Dinan, Jim Nussle (Giuliani's campaign manager) said that he is appealing to Rpoublicans, Democrats and independents. He even admitted that Democrats that like Rudy have taken to calling themselves "Rudycrats."

A strong case is being made by pundits, like this one from Daniel Casse that Rudy Giuliani's appeal right now is very similar to Ronald Reagan's. People love The Gipper, and not just for his conservatism. His leadership was key to him winning not once, but twice, and in record-setting landslides. Could Rudy pull off such a feat? Michael Barone thinks so, as the numbers stand right now, but elections are long on time, and if mistakes are made, time could be a luxury that candidates find they lack when trying to clean up from gaffes. The question that is on many minds is can he hold out.

We believe he can. We believe he can run an effective campaign. We also have faith that when asked about the issues his opponents will raise, he will be forthcoming. But in the end, this time around, the presidential race will be based on a singular issue: National security. Rudy has the leadership qualities, and take-no-nonsense style that may just appeal to voters across the country. We will simply have to wait and see. One thing is certain though, and McCain and Romney had best take this to heart. Rudy is not the only one here with a certain degree of "dirty laundry." Romney did some controversial things as governor of Massachusetts that a lot of conservatives will not like. McCain, likewise, has similar problems with the conservative base in that they do not trust him. So before these two come out of their respective glass houses to throw rocks at Rudy's, they had better be darn sure they have the goods on him, or it is going to backfire badly.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Afghan Warlord Supposedly Gives Up The Ghost; Deputy Taliban Commander In Custody

 Allah @ Hot Air picked up a bombshell of a news report from the AP. It seems that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Afghan warlord formerly associated with Taliban forces has decided it is time to make a deal:

Fugitive Afghan rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar told The Associated Press that his forces have ended cooperation with the Taliban and suggested that he was open to talks with embattled President Hamid Karzai. In a video response to questions submitted by AP, Hekmatyar said that his group contacted Taliban leaders in 2003 and agreed to wage a joint jihad, or holy war, against American troops.

"The jihad went into high gear but later it gradually went down as certain elements among the Taliban rejected the idea of a joint struggle against the aggressor," Hekmatyar said in the video, which was received Thursday. Hekmatyar wore glasses and a black turban as he spoke in front of a plain white wall at an undisclosed location.

He offered no details of the split or its timing, but said his forces were now mounting only restricted operations, partly because of a lack of resources.

"It was not a good move by the Taliban to disassociate themselves from the joint struggle," he said. "Presently we have no contact with the Taliban."


Hekmatyar's Hezb-i Islami fighters, who have been most active in eastern Afghanistan, were central to the CIA-backed resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and in the civil war that followed, but were sidelined by the Taliban militia's rise to power in the mid-1990s.


Hekmatyar nevertheless opposed the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001 that pushed the Taliban from power, and his followers have since waged a campaign of violence against American and allied forces. Hekmatyar's exact whereabouts have been unknown since he returned to Afghanistan from exile in Iran in 2002.

Allah notes that this gfuy has played this game before, using his supposed capitulation as a publicity stunt, but Dr. Rusty Shackleford @ My Pet Jawa noticed that US and NATO troops had nabbed the deputy Taliban commander operating out of South Waziristan:

American troops in Afghanistan arrested on Thursday the deputy head of the Taliban fighters active in the Pakistani tribal area of Waziristan, according to a report on the Arab satellite television channel Al Jazeera. A unit of US special forces penetrated the town of Loramani in Waziristan which border Afghanistan, capturing the Taliban leader Mullah Hakimallah Mansub.

A report on Al Jazeera also said that the Taliban had carried out two suicide attacks against NATO troops in the southern Afghan region of Kandahar. Some eyewitnesses said that they had seen at least two NATO vehicles destroyed in the same area.

Could this be why Hekmatyar decided to play ball all of a sudden? A little more fearful, a little less bold now that the surge is erupting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe. Time will tell what occurs now. I am sure our interrogators are working overtime to get what they can out of him. It also seems that this was our "high value target" that our forces were going after over the weekend. Let us see if we can roll him for bin Laden's whereabouts.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Round-heel Democrats trying to pull a cut-and-run

 They still don't get it, do they? The Democrats, that is. They are stating they'll set a timetable for an end to the Iraq phase of the war by 2008:

In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the deadline would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a "date certain" for the end of U.S. combat in the four-year-old war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The White House had no immediate reaction, although Bush has repeatedly rejected talk of establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals.

Within an hour of Pelosi's news conference, House Republican Leader John Boehner attacked the measure. He said Democrats were proposing legislation that amounted to "establishing and telegraphing to our enemy a timetable" that would result in failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

"Gen. (David) Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha," the Ohio Republican added. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has been heavily involved in crafting legislation designed to end U.S., participation in the war.

According to an explanation of the measure distributed by Democratic aides, the timetable for withdrawal would be accelerated if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not meet goals for providing for Iraq's security.

The retreatist "Defeatocrats" just don't seem to comprehend that the president sets war policy, not them. They have a singular job in wartime. That job is to fund the effort, or not fund the effort. They don't get to make strategic decisions. That power is reserved solely for the president and his military advisors. That includes Secretary of Defense Gates, and General Petreus on the ground in Iraq. Besides, President Bush has stated he will veto their measure, and they don't have the necessary votes to override his veto. They know this.

US President George W. Bush would veto legislation, crafted by Democrats, calling for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by late 2008, the White House said Thursday.

"Obviously, the administration would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looks like what was described today," senior Bush adviser Dan Bartlett told reporters as the president traveled to Brazil.

Earlier, Democrats directly challenged Bush on the strategy for the war, outlining a plan to pull US troops out by late 2008 or much sooner if progress is not made in the violence-wracked country.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill, which includes a timetable for redeployment long resisted by the White House, would "hold the Iraqi government accountable" for improved security and political conditions.

"It calls for the strategic redeployment of US combat troops some time in 2008, only then can we refocus our military efforts on Afghanistan," which she said was an "unfinished and nearly forgotten war," she said.

From Bush's official airplane, Bartlett fired back: "What we're seeing here is an artificial, precipitous withdrawal from Iraq based on, unfortunately, politics in Washington, not conditions on the ground in Baghdad, Iraq."

The bill requires Bush to certify Iraq has made meaningful and substantial progress in meeting benchmarks by July 1, and October 1, this year.

If those benchmarks are met, troops must begin immediate redeployment on March 1 next year and the withdrawal must be complete within 180 days.

In the unlikely event that Bush certified no progress was being made in Iraq on July 1, or October 1, the redeployment would have to begin immediately.

The White House charged that the plan reflected tensions inside the Democratic party between those who want to cut off funding for the unpopular war and those who seek less severe alternatives.

"It is apparent, once you look at the details of this proposal, that the chief aim of Democratic leaders is to get democrats happy, rather than the more important goal of providing the funding and flexibility generals need to succeed in their mission in Iraq," said Bush spokesman Tony Snow.

"It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground," warned Bartlett. "It's safe to say it's a non-starter for the president."

Amid sustained deadly violence in the capital despite a much-trumpeted new US-led crackdown, US national security adviser Stephen Hadley pleaded for patience with the operation and said it would take months to see results.

Meanwhile, the Army has reported a drop in attacks in Iraq:

The U.S. Army has reported a sharp decrease in insurgency attacks in Baghdad.

In the week of Feb. 24 to March 2, officials said, insurgency strikes and suicide bombings dropped for the fourth consecutive week in Baghdad. They linked this to the steady increase of security patrols in the city.

The army said violence has decreased by 80 percent in the most insurgency-ridden areas of Baghdad. Officials said Shi'ite and Sunni insurgents have been overwhelmed by the current joint Iraqi-U.S. operation in the Iraqi capital.

So, the surge is working. It's a slow process that they're going through, but even General Petreus has said that the use of force isn't enough to finish off the insurgency. The Iraqis need to step up and execute some diplomacy; get the insurgents to end their continued fighting with Iraqi and coalition forces. The fact remains, though, that the Democrats do want to pull out, and they're going to try and force the president's hand. Regardless if the war is "unpopular," we can't just turn tail and run. Doing so would only bring aout more attacks, like what we suffered after our withdrawal from Somalia. If the Democrats want to do something about the war, then stand up and be counted by caling for an end to the funding of the war.

They won't do that, of course, because they know the truth behind such a move. It'd be political suicide of the worst sort because they know Americans have more love for our troops than they do, and most Americans understand the gravity of failure in Iraq. The Democrats seem to forget that our enemy came over here and attacked us, not the other way around, and we're simply following the trail they left across the globe for us.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iranian Commander In US Hands; Singing Like A Stool Pigeon

 He was not captured in Iraq. From all accounts, it appears as though he defected. So the question is: When will Ahmadinejad make a new deal with Putin to have this guy meet an unfortunate accident?

A former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guard has left his country and is cooperating with Western intelligence agencies, providing information on Hezbollah and Iran's ties to the organization, according to a senior U.S. official.

Ali Rez Asgari disappeared last month during a visit to Turkey. Iranian officials suggested yesterday that he may have been kidnapped by Israel or the United States. The U.S. official said Asgari is willingly cooperating. He did not divulge Asgari's whereabouts or specify who is questioning him, but made clear that the information Asgari is offering is fully available to U.S. intelligence.

Asgari served in the Iranian government until early 2005 under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Asgari's background suggests that he would have deep knowledge of Iran's national security infrastructure, conventional weapons arsenal and ties to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country's nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it. Former officers with Israel's Mossad spy agency said yesterday that Asgari had been instrumental in the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s, around the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted the country's top police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqaddam, as saying that Asgari was probably kidnapped by agents working for Western intelligence agencies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Asgari was in the United States. Another U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, denied that report and suggested that Asgari's disappearance was voluntary and orchestrated by the Israelis. A spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council did not return a call for comment.


The Israeli government denied any connection to Asgari. "To my knowledge, Israel is not involved in any way in this disappearance," said Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry.

An Iranian official, who agreed to discuss Asgari on the condition of anonymity, said that Iranian intelligence is unsure of Asgari's whereabouts but that he may have been offered money, probably by Israel, to leave the country. The Iranian official said Asgari was thought to be in Europe. "He has been out of the loop for four or five years now," the official said.

Israeli and Turkish newspapers reported yesterday that Asgari disappeared in Istanbul shortly after he arrived there on Feb. 7. Iran sent a delegation to Turkey to investigate his disappearance and requested help from Interpol in locating him.

Former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who is now a member of Israel's parliament, said he believes Asgari defected to the West. "He is very high-caliber," Yatom said. "He held a very, very senior position for many long years in Lebanon. He was in effect commander of the Revolutionary Guards" there.

Ahmadinejad cannot be happy with this. As a matter of fact, if I were him I would be incensed that the little bugger defected. If Mossad and US intelligence is correct, and he does have up-to-date, internal knowledge of Hezbollah, this is a coup for the west. Any sort of military engagement with Iran would likely have Hezbollah involved. And we know that Hezbollah has been sent into Iraq to aid and train the insurgents and terrorists there.

Furthermore, His knowledge about their conventional weapons would greatly help us should airstrikes be necessary. We would need to know as much as possible about SAM sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, and any other little tricks the mullahocracy might have up it's sleeves. He could also provide us with a list of other people thinking about taking a permanent vacation from Iran. Preferably someone in their nuclear research program, maybe?

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Russian dead under suspicious circumstances: The swan dive story does not wash

 A couple days ago I wrote about Russia's return to its old ways when the story popped up abot the expert that was shot in an act of what appeared to be street violence. Yesterday, Thomas mentioned in passing a story he saw in ther papers about another Russian who recently died. This one took a flying leap out of a fifth story window. Today we learn that he was investigating arms sales between Russia, Iran, and Syria:

A Russian reporter who died after falling out of a window was investigating sales of weapons by Russia to Syria and Iran, his newspaper Kommersant said Tuesday.

Ivan Safronov had told his newspaper that he had "received information" about the sale of Sukhoi-34 fighter jets to Syria and S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran via Belarus.

The business daily said the arms were being sold "via Belarus to avoid the west accusing Russia of arming rogue states". Safronov, a former colonel, specialised in writing about the army and space.

Russian prosecutors on Monday opened an investigation into the "incitement to suicide" of Safronov.

But his newspaper has dismissed claims that he committed suicide, while Russian journalists union the SJR said Tuesday it might conduct its own inquiry.

"From what we know already it is clear it was not suicide," the union's Secretary General Igor Yakovenko told Moscow Echo radio.

"The chances that it was a murder linked to the exercise of his profession are very high," he added.

Kommersant said Safronov had called from a major Middle East arms fair in
Abu Dhabi in late February to say that he had "irrefutable confirmation" of the sales.

On his return to Moscow he had spoken to his colleagues of the "signature by
Russia and Syria of contracts for the Pantsir CI anti-aircraft system, Mig-29 fighter jets and Iskander tactical missiles," it said.

However, he told his colleagues he could not write the story immediately because he had been warned about the risk of an international scandal and an inquiry by the FSB security service for divulging secrets.

He did not say that this amounted to pressure.

In May 2006 the British defence magazine Jane's had reported a contract had been signed for the sale of S-300 SP missiles from Russia to Belarus, with the aim of selling arms indirectly to Iran.

At the time the Russian defence ministry had said that Belarus would not sell S-300 missiles to Iran.

According to Kommersant, two young students last week heard the noise of a falling body, saw Safronov lying on the snow and called an ambulance, which refused to come as it had "no time to go picking up every drunkard".

The two girls said they heard no sounds of a struggle and saw no-one leaving the apartment house after the fall.

Coincidence? First we have Litvinenko. Then we have Joyal. Now Safronov. It sure seems like Putin is cleaning house with all these bodies piling up. Granted, Joyal is not dead, but he might have been. He was shot by "street thugs" in a "robbery" according to authorities. He had come out just days before and accused Putin of "silencing critics" by killing them, and directly implicated Russia in the death or Litvinenko.

Thomas does not believe in coincidence, and in this case, I am siding with him. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. There is no way Putin can deny his country has no connection in any of these cases. There was a reason why the Soviets ended the practice of state-sponsored assassinations. (Thomas reminded me of this yesterday; Georgie Markov was the last, and it was only connected to Russia via the device used--an umbrella). The Russians, up to that point, had bungled too many of them. Well they are not making mistakes today, other than leaving a bloody set of footprints right to their front door. And just think, we think we can still be friends with them.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hewitt On "The McCain Brand" And Why It's Not Going To Help Him In '08

 Fresh off of ticking off a fair amount of social conservatives yesterday (thanks for all the "fan mail" guys; I appreciate being proven right), I'd like to beat on another group of conservatives who think that John McCain is a good choice for president. I know, the minority in the GOP is small who believe he's good, but they're still out there. Today , Hugh Hewitt's TownHall column addresses the "McCain brand," and how he's already cooked his goose:

McCain's charisma is an asset, but is it enough to revive his flagging presidential campaign?

In this era of media saturation, it is very difficult to rebrand a known quantity. It is as tough for Ford and Chrysler as it is for Britney Spears to be different from that which they have become in the public's collective mind.

The same is true of Sen. McCain. He has a blazing personality, but that's only part of the brand. The other parts? McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy, Lindsey Graham.

I discuss the McCain brand at length in my new book, "A Mormon in the White House?" and conclude that while Sen. McCain is a great American, he's been a lousy senator and a terrible Republican. That's the brand.

Lots of products have mixed brands. I think of the Jaguar of the '70s — beautiful to watch, wonderful to drive, a nightmare to own. In politics, there's Bill Clinton, a gift to journalists in search of copy.

The McCain brand can't be saved by charm. Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Romney are both relatively new to most Americans, and they are both gifted with as much or more of the kind of energy that John McCain threw off in 2000. The rest of the GOP field simply doesn't have that energy, and the money totals will underscore that fact when the first numbers are published at month's end.

Pastor Phil is a friend of mine with whom I have an annual lunch when he vacations in California. His church is in Iowa, and earlier this year he accepted an invitation to meet Mitt Romney. He's never been one of the "I can't vote for a Mormon" evangelicals, but he is very pro-life and very serious about politics and government.

He was deeply impressed by Romney, and especially by his energy and intelligence. Serious people know just how extraordinarily difficult the world has become and will remain for America. To read even a little about our enemies is to be alarmed. To read deeply is to be certain that the next president must be both a skilled executive, a gifted communicator, and crucially, an optimist in Reagan's mold.

The mayor and the governor both have these skill sets, but McCain no longer conveys that last crucial aspect. His charm and charisma is of a different sort, and it doesn't appear to be the sort the Republican primary voters want.

And the social conservatives claim thar Rudy and Mitt have baggage, and while many of them agree that they dislike John McCain, I have heard a great deal of them state if it comes down to a choice between McCain, Romney, or Giuliani, they'll vote for McCain in the primaries. No offense to the McCain supporters out there, but that's like throwing your vote away on a third party candidate.

McCain has no chance of winning the election in 2008. He would have to do some serious damage control and image repairing to pull that off, and even then many conservatives still won't choose him. They'll stay home (if it's a race between Hillary and McCain), and his opponent will win. And I fail to see how anyone could vote for a man so seemingly hostile to the Constitution as McCain has been. Campaign Finance Reform? The Gang of 14? Making new legislation "defining" torture? The Kennedy immigration bill? C'mon folks, he's no friend of the Constitution.

He is also hostile to his constituents. Arizona tried a recall effort shortly before his vote on the Iraq phase of the war. When it was conveyed to him to come home and face a possible recall election, he blew the voters off. (And the recall effort failed when he cast his vote; the people seemed satisfied he had pulled his head out of his @$$.) When he came out in favor of the Kennedy immigration bill, and actively worked with the senior senator from Massachusetts on the legislation, a grass-roots group, amusingly calling themselves "brickbats" started sending bricks to McCain's office; their emphasis that a fence must be built on America's borders, especially the southern border. It was in this infamous Vanity Fair profile where his real disdain for the American people became clear with one simple quote:

"By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the g*ddamned fence if they want it."

Way to go, Johnny. That's the way to show this nation how much respect you have for them, and to show them that the days of your losing your temper at the drop of a hat are over. Those days aren't gone. They're still here. And because they are, John McCain simply has no chance in '08. It'd be best for him to drop out before he ends up losing it all over again.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Democrat's New Plan: Same As The Old One

 Unlike my husband, I will not be stirring up any hornet's nests with my opinion today. The e-mails coming in range from "thank yous for your common sense" to "f**k you you phony Republican." (Sheesh, people, it's just an opinion.)

No, today we have yet another scheme by the Democrats who are still trying to end the war without having to accept responsibility for doing it:

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief.

The legislative jujitsu in the backrooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq. Democrats passed a resolution in February opposing Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, but Murtha's proposal to go a step further by restricting deployment to troops deemed to be adequately trained and equipped elicited a fierce response from Republicans, while also dividing the Democratic caucus.

The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military's own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in "the national interest."

Democrats hope the waiver and benchmark proposals, whose details were confirmed by aides and senior Democrats close to the House Appropriations Committee and leadership, will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. That should allow the committee to move forward next week with a $100 billion war spending bill.

"They're going to end up where they should have started a long time ago: You set readiness requirements, time-in-country requirements, time-in-rotation requirements as policy, then grant the president waivers and demand why it's so important for him to violate these principles," said a senior Democrat close to the Appropriations Committee. "It's all part of military regulations now. You have to elevate that to the policy of the country."

Here we go again. It is the slow bleed redux only this time they are trying to force the president to admit the troops are not ready, and sign off on them going anyway. If they pull this one off, they can then go back and show America that "Bush does not care about the troops; they are not ready and he is still sending them." You know, if the Democrats cared so darn much about the troops, why do they not just shut up, and let them finish their job so they can come home?

But that is the key to this. They do not care about the troops. All they are to the Democrats is the flogger they can beat the president with. Everyday another soldier dies, they wave that body like a banner, shrieking "SEE! Another one one has died in vain!"Indeed another has died, but it is most certainly not in vain.

The most peculiar thing about this continued nuttiness from the Left is that in all honesty they have only one option when it comes to the war--Put up or shut up; defund it, or end these shenanigans. They cannot tie the hands of the president, legally. Nor can they hold up troop deployments. They cannot set benchmarks and timetables for withdrawal. the only thing Congress can do is cut the funding, which they seem more and more reluctant to do. Maybe the Republicans should force the issue. Instead of having a vote on the war itself (another worthless chase around the mulberry bush), they need to bring it up to the floor.

Throw down the gauntlet and surprise the heck out of the Left. Do not do a non-binding resolution which has no meaning. Make it, quite literally, a put up or shut up moment for the Democrats. Get them on record as to where they stand. I know it sounds a lot like political suicide, but I doubt it would even reach the floor. The Democrats would scramble to stop it because they do not want to be held accountable for a decision. Part of being in Congress means that some times, someday you have to make a decision, and your vote goes on the record. The Democrats do not want that.

They have been embarrassed enough by their war votes. They have roundly been beated over the head about those votes. They would not dare try to defund the war out of the simple fact that they know they are lying when they talk about the public support for the war. An overwhelming majority of Americans still support the troops and the mission. They do not, however, appreciate being brow-beat nightly by the MSM over the troops killed over there. People say they are sick of the war but that is because the media only reports the bad news. "If it bleeds, it leads," is the old media axoim, and today's media does it's absolute "best" to give the public that side of the war.

This new plan by the Democrats will fail. The president is not going to go for it, and he will not horse trade his authority as Commander-in-Chief for the appropriations, if that is what the Democrats threaten to hold over his head. They will have to come up with something better than this, or they will have to admit that the only way they are going to "win" this debate is to attempt to defund the war, and take the lumps the public will hand to them in '08.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Passing Thoughts On A Subject I've Been Mulling ...

 There's something I'd like to give my two cents on right now. Not because I like going against the grain, or that I want to start internal strife. No, that's not my intention at all. But two recent pieces written by two very eloquent authors caught my attention late last week, and I took the weekend to read them (a couple of times) and think about them real hard. The first author is Noemie Emery, and I encourgae our readers to view this latest piece. The second comes from Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse. The subjects deal with social conservatives.

Now far be it for me to start bagging on fellow conservatives, but I'm in agreement with Mr. Moran. For too long socila conservatives have dominated the Republican ranks, forcing, in a way, litmus tests on candidates. Ms. Emery makes a similar observation. in her piece. The point that I believe they're both making is that we do have a big tent with a lot of conservative opinions. Some are prevalent, and important in our daily lives. Others aren't, and should remain "back-burner" issues. My problem is that the social conservatives are fighting tooth and nail right now to remain dominant in the debate over the presidential candidates. They're coming out--guns blazing--against people like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. For Gov. Romney, it's his "flip-flopping" on abortion; for Rudy it's his stance on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.

Don't get me wrong (and I'm using language that identifies ME, and not Marcie. Don't take out your anger on her. To my knowledge, she hasn't really sounded off on this), I think those issues are important to the nation. They are a part of the foundation of the conservative movement. They have been for some thirty-plus years. But just because I choose to look the other way on those issues for either candidate taking flak right now doesn't make me any less of a conservative. Marcie and I are both (in our own definition) Constitutional conservatives. Party comes third in this equation, ideology second, and the Constitution trumps all. We are definitely conservative, but to understand me, you have to understand where my conservatism came from.

Ronald Reagan.

Reagan came to this nation when it needed him most. At the climax of the Cold War, with a deadly enemy staring us in the face, Pres. Reagan entered office determined to not only lead this nation back to the greatness squandered by Jimmy Carter and his "malaise-ridden" worldview, but to guarantee this nation would never live in fear of Communism again. His goal wasn't to rid the nation of abortion, or to hold back the gay lobby. His goal was to end the Soviet's threat of this nation for good. Now, we can go round-robin about whether he succeeded (especially given Putin's recent moves to consolidate power, and reinstitute many of the "old ways" of his former Soviet Union), but the point was that we needed a leader at that time, and Reagan fit the bill. The nation overlooked the fact that he signed a controversial abortion bill in 1967 as governor of California. People overlook/ed the fact that he had no problem with gays in his former industry (that would be Hollywood, folks). They overlooked his embrace of Franklin Roosevelt's dubious New Deal.

They accepted Reagan because he showed a nation desperately in need of a leader that he was the man for the job.

Both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani could prove to be that next man. Our debut column at Common Conservative made the case for Rudy based on much of what I just stated above; the same argument goes for Mitt Romney. The social conservatives we know, and have argued heatedly with us over these men, can't believe we'd support either man. At this stage of the game, folks, how could we not? We look at the field of contenders, and aside from those two men, only a couple others stand out. (Among them Duncan Hunter, a man we don't think has a great chance of winning, and Mike Huckabee, which may be better as a running mate. Only time will tell.)

America is at war. It's a nasty war against an enemy that isn't stupid. It's cunning, It's shrewd. And it uses cowardly tactics to achieve their ends. They have shown us the lengths they're willing to go to in winning this war. We, on the other hand, have had to contend with those screaming that we're beeing too forceful in the prosecution of this war. (Most are on the Left, though I've had a few conservatives complaining, as well.) But the conservative complaints stem from the fact we're not being hard enough in this war. We're trying to wage a politically-correct war, and trying far too hard to "win the hearts and minds" of the people. Forget it. Those people don't have a mindset like we do. They're happy to be free, but they're happier that we're there and NOW we're fighting to win.

A majority of social conservatives out there believe the war is issue number one for the 2008 election. But there are those nutter few that refuse to set their little pet projects aside. Fine. Be that way. But understand that when we go to the polls in 2008, we're pulling the lever or marking the box for a leader. Now, if Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani (or Hunter or Huckabee) state they will prosecute this war with everything we have, and destroy or force the unconditional surrender of our enemy; if they promise (as Rudy has) to nominate originalist, constructionist jurists; if they promise to curtail out-of-control congressional spending, and push to reinforce Pres. Bush's tax cuts; if they promise to reform our immigration problem beginning with enforcement, and they govern on these issues, then these men will have our vote. I don't care if they are or were pro-choice. I don't care if they believe that gays should get civil unions. I don't care about any other social issues. As president, they propose legislation for Congress, and they sign bills into law.

Roe won't be dealt with via a Constitutional amendment. Know why? No one in Congress is willing to cut their own political throats in supporting such an amendment. Additionally, 37 states have to agree to it for it to become law. We contend, and have for some time, that if Roe were overturned, at least half of the nation would still permit the act with the usual three exemptions in place now (in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother). In other words, legislatively, there's no way to undo abortion. That goes for Executive Power, as well. An Executive Order won't do it, either. The US Supreme Court blocked Truman's attempt to federalize the steel mills in 1952, claiming Executive Order 10340. Justice Black wrote, basically, that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. So, such a move by the president would most definitely be ruled as unconstitutional by the high court.

It's time for the pro-life social conservatives to come to that realization. The same goes for the rest of their ideas. I'm not saying that they should abandon them. I'm not evben saying they shouldn't voice them. What I'm saying is that this time around, the social agenda doesn't matter as much as winning this war does. For that to happen, we need a leader, not a panderer. I hate the fact abortion exists. I despise the fact that many people believe gays have a "right to marry" (SHOW US where that is in the Constitution, please?).

But to shut off support, or even praise, of one man because he doesn't agree with you is just plain asinine. It's called cutting off one's nose to spite their face, and when this minority does that, they're going to cost themselves a real leader. We thought Pres. Bush had it in him. We thought he wouldn't be like his father. But more and more, our suspicions and beliefs from 2000 are validated daily. Pres. Bush is a moderate. He has dragged out his veto pen once, to stop a stem-cell bill, and has decided it's much easier to negotiate with two of our enemies that it is to confront them. Reagan didn't begin negotiations--REAL negotiations--with the Soviets until he was certain he could win. If we act this way and choose someone based on their social views of the world, we're not going to win this war. Again, time to wake up, folks. If we lose this war, abortion will be the least of our problems. Tax-cuts? Gay Rights? Forget them. We'll be fighting for our lives against an emboldened enemy.

We need a leader. I'm willing to give Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani a chance, even if others won't. And if this offends some social conservatives out there, I'm real sorry. If this offends friends and allies we have, and they never speak to us again, so be it. For us, the bottom line in 2008 is winning the war. Everything else comes second. We need to be secure in our homeland, and we need our enemy destroyed. If a pro-choice man can do it, they've got our vote. If the social conservatives out there would like to try something new, they might try being united for once, instead of divided by miniscule ideological differences between one another. I can accept the differences we have. We're not like the Left where we ostracize one another because we don't agree. (Personally, that's high school BS, and some adults I know need to seriously grow up already.) We're a party united in common beliefs and the common defense of liberty. Let's start acting like that already. Time's wasting, and while we quibble, we may lose the next man who could take up Reagan's mantle.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Has Control Of The House? The Blue Dogs Seem To Have The Reins ...

 The antiwar people are howling for a withdrawal from Iraq, and many within the Democrats in Congress agree with them. But the pesky Blue Dog Democrats keep getting in the way, so sayeth the New York Times:

Now, with a change in power in Congress and a new military strategy to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the members of the group — most of them liberals — are suddenly much in demand, finding themselves at the center of the debate over the war.

Yet even with a majority of Americans opposing the war, the caucus is struggling to overcome its fringe image and is becoming increasingly frustrated by what its members say is the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to heed their calls for decisive action to the end the war.

At the same time, though the members are united in their desire to bring American military involvement in Iraq to a speedy end, they are still debating the best way to do so. In that sense, they reflect the broader struggle among Democrats in Congress, who have been unable to coalesce around a single position on how strongly to confront President Bush over the war.

House Democratic leaders this week seemed to back away slightly from a proposal by Representative
John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to limit Mr. Bush’s latest supplemental spending request for the war. Mr. Murtha’s proposal would have required strict readiness for troops sent to Iraq, essentially limiting the president’s ability to follow through on his plan to deploy an additional 21,500.

Mr. Murtha’s conditions were favored by caucus members, though it has come under fire from
Republicans who labeled it a “slow bleed” strategy. The proposed strategy has also run into opposition from conservative House Democrats, who argue that their concerns need to be taken seriously because they helped deliver the Democratic majority in the midterm elections. The Murtha proposal, they said, would leave the party vulnerable to charges of abandoning troops.

“My concern, representing the state where we’ve got the highest percentage call-up of guard and reserve in the country, I want to make sure Congress does not do anything that hamstrings troops on the ground,” said Representative Jim Matheson, a Utah Democrat who is a member of the Blue Dogs, a coalition of party moderates and conservatives.

Nancy Pelosi did a great job of patting herself on the back for helping to orchestrate the win in 2006. And while she was busy doing that, she failed to note that the Democrats had to run moderates and conservatives to win. Now, they want their voices to be heard. Not that they were not heard from the beginning of the new Congress. They wasted little time in slapping her down.

--They opposed Jack Murtha becoming the new House Majority Leader, and instead chose Stney Hoyer; He and Nancy rarely get along.

--They nixed her idea about Alcee Hastings being put in charge of the House Intelligence Committee

--A few have howled over the whole House Intelligence fiasco surrounding Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman; they had even more to say about Silvestre Reyes when he failed the little pop quiz regarding our enemy and Hezbollah. (I recall Tim Matheson stating he was unimpressed with Mr. Reyes.)

And now they stepped up again, and made a stink over Jack Murtha's slow bleed plan. They are doing more than simply making a name for themselves. They are sending a concise message to the nation that while they do have some liberal social views, they will not stand idly by and let their colleagues make mistake after mistake in a time of war. Bleeding the troops for political purposes is just one such mistake. They know it is not smart to do from the standpoint of national security and defending this nation, but they also have an insight that Nancy and Co. do not seem to pick up on.

It really ticks off the voters. Well over half of this nation still support the troops and their mission. When you boil it down to that, it cannot be pun by the spin-meisters. The nation gets it. Nancy and Co., and her bloc of antiwar, special interest fever swampers do not seem to see that. I believe this is why the Blue Dogs will be a force to be reckoned with in the Congress. They will not sit by the wayside and let the Democrats wreck the mission out of partisanship, nor will they sit ont he sidelines and keep quiet. They were elected to represent their people and that is what they are doing.

A lot of Democrat insiders claim that the party took control of Congress because of the problems withthe war. That is anything but true. While Iraq was indeed a topic for the election, it was the GOP's feckless behavior that cost them their majority. Uncontrolled spending (including earmarks and pork spending), incompetance from the majority party, a nearly "imperial" attitude (William Jefferson, anyone?) about a great many things, the spinelessness of the party as a whole (judicial nominees, anyone?), and a general wishy-washiness that can only be described as, well, Democrat-like. Sure the war is in there, but it is much further down the list than most believe.

The Democrats have learned how to win. The question is can they hold onto what they' have won. A better question is do they know how to make gains in the Congress? Only time will tell. We can see they are pulling out all the stops for 2008, though. The problem lies in the fact that they seem to be dumping all their eggs into one basket at the moment, and that is the race for president. 2008 is a congressional election year, as well, with the Democrats having less to defend in the Senate than the Republicans, and every House seat up for election. We shall see if they learned their lesson from the Lieberman campaign.

They virtually withdrew support from Sen. Lieberman because he did not tow the antiwar line. The Blue Dogs are not playing ball with the home team right now as they rein in Jack Murtha, and that has the antiwar moonbats howling. Will people like Tim Matheson receive loyal party support in 2008, or will Nancy and Co., fed up with the moderates and conservatives, yank the rug out from underneath them, and condemn themselves to defeat? As I said, only time will tell.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Russia Same As The Old

 The wall may have come down nearly twenty years ago. The Soviet Union may be gone. But it sure seems like the the old ways are still in common practice. At least on the surface they seem to be still in use:

An expert on Russian intelligence was critically injured in a shooting in front of his suburban Washington home, authorities said.

The shooting of Paul Joyal, 53, came days after he accused the Russian government of involvement in the poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The FBI was assisting in the investigation.

Joyal was shot Thursday by two men in his driveway, police said.

The shooting appeared to be a random robbery and street shooting, a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person did not have authority to comment on the case.

In an interview broadcast last Sunday on "Dateline NBC," Joyal also accused the Russian government of trying to silence its critics.

"A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you, and we will silence you _ in the most horrible way possible," Joyal said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in the Litvinenko case.

Joyal and Litvinenko were acquaintances, said Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB counterintelligence chief who is now a U.S. citizen and who met with Joyal several hours before he was shot.

Kalugin also said Joyal's condition was improving.

Joyal works for National Strategies, a Washington-based government consulting firm.

The old ways are definitiely in use again in Putin's Russia. We would be wise to mind our associations with this man. He is deep into business with many of our enemies, especially Iran, and seems to be acting with absolute impunity now.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iranian Sleeper Cells Within Gulf Nations?

 The Telegraph reports today on Iran's plans against us should we attack them, and target their nuclear facilities:

(HT: Captain Ed)

Iran has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear programme, a former Iranian diplomat has told The Sunday Telegraph.

Spies working as teachers, doctors and nurses at Iranian-owned schools and hospitals have formed sleeper cells ready to be "unleashed" at the first sign of any serious threat to Teheran, it is claimed.

Trained by Iranian intelligence services, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shias in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalised by the Gulf's ruling Sunni Arab clans.

Were America or Israel to attack Iran, such cells would be instructed to foment long-dormant sectarian grievances and attack the ex-tensive American and European business interests in wealthy states such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario would bring chaos to the Gulf, one of the few areas of the Middle East that remains prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments.

The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry. They came as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, made a formal visit to Saudi Arabia yesterday in what was widely seen as an attempt to defuse growing Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of backing Shia death squads killing Sunnis in Iraq, and of backing the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia in its efforts to bring down the government in Beirut. Meanwhile, a US naval build-up has continued in the Gulf waters south of Iran, a move intended to show Washington's readiness to strike against Teheran's nuclear installations for defying UN orders to cease uranium enrichment.

Mr Assadinia, who fled Iran after whistle-blowing on corruption among the country's all-powerful theocrats, said: "The Iranian government believes that to survive it needs permanent bases throughout the Middle East. Anybody who contemplates threatening or invading Iran will have those cells unleashed against them."

Mr Assadinia, 50, served for two years at the Iranian consulate in Dubai, which he says was also used as a conduit for illicit funding of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shia militant group that waged a six-week war with Israel last summer.

Iranian foreign ministry agents would regularly pass through with suitcases containing up to £11 million, using diplomatic baggage channels to bypass customs scrutiny.

"The amounts varied, but it would come through on average twice a month," he said. "I would see it sometimes. As far as I know, that money always went to Hezbollah."

His consulate, he said, was a hub for regional intelligence operations because of the huge number of Iranians working in Dubai, which is the main trade port for the Middle East. Its skyscrapers and industrial estates are home to 4,000 Iranian businesses, providing easy cover for espionage.

Other intelligence activities included running nightclubs and prostitution rings, where carousing officials and diplomats could be lured into "honey trap" blackmail operations, and organising Iranian expatriates - there are an estimated 500,000 in the Gulf - to act as double agents.

Some might pooh-pooh this off as just another nutter story by the MSM, trying to add more fuel to a fire already growing in intensity and heat. Then, there are people like me that take what is said seriously, with a grain of salt. The guy they're talking to is a former consul, and a former spook. So, the question is how's the veracity of his story? Can it be trusted. Spy vs. spy, folks, neither side can really be trusted to tell the truth. Does Iran really have agents in the Gulf states? Why not? Saudi Arabia is accusing them of running operations there, and we know of their proclivities in Syria and Lebanon. (BTW, a note here so there's no confusion like on Capt. Ed's site--This story is not referencing the Gulf states in the US, but rather the Persian Gulf nations.)

But let's take a look at what might happen in a confrontation with us. Iran's air war would be over in about two days. The ground offensive would be done in about the same amount of time Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait in '91. (I'd hope we learned our lesson from 2003 not to rush forward, but rather present overwhelming force against the enemy.) Of course, I'd doubt we would put a single boot on the gound for the sheer fact that the Iranians should really topple their own government. We'll take out the nuclear facilities, command and control, Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard barracks, and leadership targets. Let the Iranians handle the rest with the US and coalition forces serving in a support capacity.

The reason for a lack of boots on the ground is simple: The backbone of Iran's military revolves around Hezbollah. For those keeping record, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and not one to be taken lightly as their numbers in Iran supposedly are over 40,000. That's not an "insurgency." That's a bloody army (emphasis on the "bloody" part). The IRG won't last long against a constant pounding from US airstrikes.

But the point of the story, the fact they do have sleeper cells throughout the Gulf region, is a worrisome one. The Iranians will strike at any Gulf state associated with the US in retaliation for a strike carried out by US forces. And I'm sure they have them in Israel, too, just in case Israel gets a wild hair up it's backside to go after them. If anyone still doubts Iran's intentions in the region, then you need to have your head examined. Ahamdinejad is forcing the region closer to a confrontation conflagration. That's what you get when you put a religious zealot in power that is dead set on putting in motion events surrounding End Times. Just because he hasn't spoken about the 12th Imam in a couple months doesn't mean he's flip-flopped like John McCain. He's keeping it close to the vest, and probably because the mullahs told him to knock it off.

But he still believes that he will usher in the age of the 12th Imam. He also believes he can remove Israel from the face of the planet. We'll see, but I'm not holding my breath on those boasts. Though I am interested to know what his supposed "big announcement" is supposed to be that's should be coming out next month. Let's just hope that while we have dithered and dawdled--wasting out time with negotiations--that his big surprise isn't a working nuclear wepon. In that case, all bets are off, and the president had better be prepared to act decisively.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive