About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Times Of London Anxiously Gulps The Oxygen On A Non-Story

Posted by on Sunday, February 25, 2007 3:09:53 PM
 Captain Ed addresses a blog buzz early this morning thanks to a Times of London report that breathlessly reports that some military "commanders" would resign from the Pentagon should we attack Iran:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

This story shows the idiocy of the Times. Those that are in the Pentagon are not battlefield commanders. They are a part of the general staff there. There are hundreds of officers in the Pentagon, so the resignation of a handful is hardly the breathtaking newsflash the Times makes it out to be. Captain Ed notes that if we do attack Iran (which we are not planning to), and these generals resign, that is the honorable thing to do. I concur. The last thing we need are those int he Pentagon that disapprove of the mission, and work to undermine it.

And let us touch on Iran. The president is actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to the rogue regime and it's desire to fiddle with nuclear power. Vice President Cheney has stated that all options, including a military one, are on the table. Of course we have a military option on the table. We game all sorts of scenarios, and always have. Captain Ed says we probably have one for Russia and China. To that there is no doubt, but WE would not be surprised to see a scenario involving Britain and Israel--our two staunchest allies. (Hey, you never know, and it is always wise to err on the side of caution.)

Point being, the Times of London reported this story much the same way the BBC reported five days ago our so-called "attack plans" for Iran; that is, without merit or intelligence, and a complete lack of understanding with regard to the military and the Pentagon. It really is not such a big deal to see four or five of the big brass in the Pentagon step down. Now, were they serving line officers in the field, that would be newsworthy.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This "Slow-Bleed" Idea Is Over

Posted by on Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:34:20 PM
 Jack Murtha has been defeated by his own ineptitude, his party, and a unified Republican front, according to the WaPo:

(Hat-Tip: K-Lo @ The Corner)

The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.

But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

Now the WaPo does it's best to remind people that Mr. Murtha's plan could still be pushed through, but he is facing a huge firestorm over trying to bull-in-a-china-shop his way through this. Add that to the fact that the president does not take kindly to threats, especially against the troops, and when it directly challenges his constitutional authority.

The Democrats, at least those on the Nancy Pelosi/Hillary Clinton side, seem to think that the election in November has somehow endowed them with certain new powers. That could not be further from the truth. The Democrats may have a majority, but it is anything but veto-proof. Their misreading of the election results has led them down this road--a road with an issue that could cost them serious constituent support--with 2008 looming right around the corner. They were not reelected for "life," but rather for two years. Nancy Pelosi may have the shortest tenure of the former Speakers with how she is acting.

Jack Murtha needs to be reigned in. He is not helping the Democrats. He is hurting them with his brazenly infant-like antics. HE does not make the decisions regarding the war, the president does. We do not care if he is upset with the war. If he is, then quit trying to pull these end-run games, and make a decision already.

If Jack Murtha is so sure the voters want us out of Iraq, then pull the funding for the mission. But he will not, and neither will the rest od the Democrats. They are using this issue to beat on the president because they know they can. They have enough people in the country that will back them on beating up a president they do not like, but they do not really want to see the troops defunded and withdrawn.

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

Hugh's Interview With Rudy Giuliani

Posted by on Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:37:08 AM
 Yes, yes ... the critical mail is already pouring in over the comments Marcie and I made about Rudy yesterday. More important that that, however, is the fact that Hugh Hewitt interviewed the former mayor of Gotham yesterday (it aired today). The transcript is at the link provided, and it's also cited entirely below:

HH: Welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, Mayor. Good to have you.

RG: How are you, Hugh?

HH: I’m great.

RG: Good to talk to you.

HH: I’m great. Mayor, the campaign’s off to a pretty early start. Are you surprised to see Senators Clinton and Obama throwing bricks at each other this early?

RG: I’m surprised on both scores. I mean, I think it is off to an early start, but you know...and I think everybody’s rushing to catch up, and I am surprised that it got so personal so quickly, but I think that was by accident. I don’t think it was by their design. It’s sort of like a third party who inserted something into that, and I imagine they’re going to quickly get off it. Neither one of them, I think, wants to be in that position.

HH: Do you expect the Republican side to go anywhere like that in a hurry?

RG: I hope not. I hope not (laughing). I hope not, but if it does, I think we’ll get off it right away. It’ll end up because it’s an accident, not because of the desires of Senator McCain or Governor Romney or me, or any of the others. We don’t have any desire to be personally engaged with each other. I respect everybody that’s in the Republican field, and I respect everybody in the Democratic field.

HH: Let me ask you, Mayor. You’ve got a Brooklyn kid, Catholic Italian, you’ve got a white Mormon Massachusetts guy running. Are the Evangelicals in the south just going to say forget about it for you and Governor Romney?

RG: I think, I think all Republicans, however you want to describe them, from the south, from the north, from the east or west, they’re going to look at all of us, and they’re going to try to figure out which one fits better what we want. And you’re never going to find somebody you agree with 100%, or is exactly like you are, and there’s nobody like that. So you look at the overall person, there’ll be a few things you disagree with, hopefully a lot of things you agree with, and the big question is, who do you think can lead the country more effectively? Who’s had the experience to do that? And who has the better ideas for the future?

HH: Richard Land, I’m sure you saw, he was on record this week saying I don’t think Evangelicals will vote for Rudy. I disagree with that, but how do you get past that kind of a block?

RG: Well, I have spent a great deal of time over the last three, four years in various places, talking to many, many people including clergy, who are, who would describe themselves, I think, as Evangelicals, They are. Some of the people working on my campaign are very committed as Evangelical, born again Christians, and I have a great knowledge of religion, and a great respect for it, and I think there’s a great deal of commonality. And I find that when we spend time together, or in other words, I talk to groups that would describe themselves as Evangelical Christians, or very committed to religion, that they come away feeling that on most issues, there’s agreement. There are some disagreements, but that there’s a basic core of looking at the world in very much the same way.

HH: Now the other outsider in this race, Governor Romney, is also getting some Evangelical blowback, because he’s a Mormon. What do you make of that issue?

RG: I think that the Governor’s religion is not an issue in any way in the campaign, and any more than John Kennedy as being a Catholic was an issue, or Senator Lieberman as being Jewish when we ran for vice president. I mean, these things…I think we’re way beyond that, and I don’t think it’ll be an issue. I mean, obviously, by an issue, people will comment on it, but I think the American people have gone way beyond that, and they’re willing…what they want to do is look at the person, and what kind of…how have you performed in public office, what have you done, have you acted as a fair, impartial person in dealing with people of all different religions or whatever. And if that’s the case, those are the issues, not is what is someone’s religion, but how have they acted.

HH: Now Mayor, my first day at the Department of Justice in 1984 was your last. I joined Bill Smith’s staff as a special assistant. You had a farewell party. I’d like to go back and do a little biography for people.

RG: That was the longest speech I ever gave (laughing).

HH: Yes, it was, actually. It may still be going on.

RG: (laughing) I remember it. I remember it.

HH: I was in the back of the room saying who is this guy?

RG: Ted Olson and Bob McConnell, and all my old pals keep…always tease me about that.

HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson’s endorsement, taking a digression. That’s a big deal. Will he be playing a role in your campaign?

RG: He sure will. I mean, Ted Olson is someone I have…first of all, he’s a very, very good friend. I mean, he’s someone…he’s been my friend since those days, and we’ve been through a lot together. Yes, Ted will play a very big role in my campaign, and I mean, if Ted weren’t my very, very good friend, he’d be somebody I’d still want to rely on as probably one of the biggest experts on the Constitution in this country, and the person who probably has argued before the Supreme Court more than anybody I know.

HH: He or Judge Starr, one of those two are the two most…

RG: He or Ken have probably argued before the Supreme Court more than anyone that I know, and their knowledge of it is remarkable. I mean, it’s a great asset to anybody.

HH: Will he 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.

HH: Did you have a litmus test for those hundred?

RG: No. No, not a litmus test on a single issue, a philosophical test, meaning what I wanted to know was what’s their view of how you interpret the Constitution and laws? Are they…do the Constitution and laws exist as the thing from which you have to discern the meaning and the intent? Or are you going to superimpose your own social views? And I want, I like the first kind of judge, who is a judge who looks to the meaning of the Constitution, doesn’t try to create it.

HH: A pro-life voter looking at you, knowing that you’re pro-choice, but not concerned that presidents really matter so much in that, except as far as judges are concerned, what do you tell them about who you’re going to be putting on the federal bench?

RG: I’m going to say I’d put people like…I mean, the best way to do it is to just say I would, I could just have easily have appointed Sam Alito or Chief Justice Roberts as President Bush did, in fact. I’d have been pretty proud of myself if I had been smart enough to make that choice if I were the president.

HH: Do you expect justices like Roberts and Alito to come out of a Giuliani administration?

RG: I hope. I mean, that would be my goal. I mean, they’re sort of a very high standard, and so is Justices Scalia and Thomas. That would be the kind of judges I would look for, both in terms of their background and their integrity, but also the intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law.

HH: Now you know, the first President Bush got this big head fake with Justice Souter. Do you think you can get fooled the same way that he did on that one?

RG: All of us make mistakes. I mean, your goal and your intent would be not to, but I learned a long time ago that you’re never 100% correct in the decisions you make, and I think that that…and with judges, that’s even more difficult, because they change their minds. But I was very aware of that when I was appointing judges to the criminal court in New York. And my goal there was more the criminal justice issues. You know, were they going to be tougher on crime, basically. Were they going to interpret some of the massive grants and rights that were given to criminals with an eye toward protecting the victims and protecting society. And I think I did a pretty good job of that. I can’t say I was 100%, but I think I did a pretty darn good job of that.

HH: Now I want to go back to the bio stuff. When you left main Justice in ’84, you went down to the Southern District of New York, and can you give us a short course, a lot of people don’t really know, the mob as it was when you got there, and organized crime as it was when you left?

RG: Well, when I got there, there were…organized crime was a major factor in New York. Organized crime’s a major factor in the country. It controlled things like the Teamster’s Union, and it controlled other areas of industry, like the Fulton Fish Market in New York, the carting industry in New York, some of the other labor unions in New York. So it had…it was beyond just being a criminal organization that committed crimes in an unfortunate and effective way. It had infiltrated the legitimate aspects of our society, labor unions, to some extent politics, businesses, the garment industry, and I came at a time that was very fortuitous, in the sense that the FBI had done a great deal of work in gathering information against them, I was the associate attorney general, I knew that work, so when I became U.S. attorney, I think I was able to further it in a way that probably most others couldn’t, because of the background I had had in Washington, and my relationships with the FBI. And I would say over that five years, which would be ’83-’89, we did, we inflicted the kind of damage on organized crime that had never been inflicted before. It wasn’t just putting hundreds in jail here, and thousands, helping with thousands of imprisonments in Italy, because we also had a cooperation with the Italian government, it was that the part that I saw as the most significant was the use of the racketeering statue to infiltrate their businesses, and take their money away from them. We basically took them out of the carting industry. We took them out of the garment center. We took them out of the Teamster’s Union. I brought a case that put the Teamster’s Union in trusteeship, and it was right during the…it’s very interesting to think back on this, it was right during the 1988 presidential primaries, and every presidential candidate, I think everyone, condemned me for doing it, for using the RICO statute, except one, Vice President Bush. He defended me and said I did the right thing. It always made me, I’ve always, I was always an admirer of Vice President Bush before that, I became a big admirer of his when he…because actually, he was getting the worst of it, because the Teamsters had previously been Republican.

HH: Yeah.

RG: And this case switched them to the Democratic Party…

HH: Yeah.

RG: And I felt kind of responsible for it.

HH: Well now, Mayor, when you look at that long, years long effort to go after the mob, and then you look at two things, street gangs, because in L.A., where we’re talking today, they’re enormous and they’re very, very deep and well-funded, and terrorism, and I mean, the national Republican Party has just discovered they’ve been getting money from a guy whose now been indicted on terrorism charges, can the law work against those two organizations the same way they worked against the mob?

RG: It sure can. In fact, one of the thins that I was most encouraged by, right after September 11, when there were things that could really discourage you, and make you feel, you know, how are we going to deal with this, and what are we going to do, and we’ve never encountered this kind of attack before, the worst attack on our history, we’ve never dealt with an enemy like this before. Usually, they were concentrated in a particular country, or a particular defined movement, but this is a number of parts of the world, they’re determined to destroy us, they’re determined to kill us. I thought that the Justice Department action in arresting people, and then seizing assets, particularly that second part, seizing assets, was really important, because one of the ways that we can win this war on terror, and destroy these terrorist groups, is not only military, not only political, intelligence, it’s seizing their assets, getting their money away from them, finding their sources of money and cutting it off. Then, the organization can’t really accomplish anything really sophisticated. It’s the same thing we did with organized crime. We realized that at one point, that just pursuing them as criminals to put in jail was not good enough, because you put a hundred in jail, and a hundred would take their place with the same $2 billion dollars in assets. You take that $2 billion dollars in assets, and shrink it to a billion, now they had half the organization.

HH: Right.

RG: If you could shrink it to $500 million, they were starting to disappear. And if you got it below $500 million, they were gone.

HH: And that will work against street gangs, you think?

RG: It’ll work against street gangs, it’ll work against terrorism. It is an enormously powerful and important weapon of law enforcement. Domestically, it can be used against street gangs, and internationally against organized crime…against terrorism as well as organized crime.

HH: Last question. I know you’re up against another interview, Mayor. Last question. At St. Anne’s, and at Bishop Laughlin, who don’t you want us to talk to in the media?

RG: Oh, you mean people I went to school with?

HH: Yeah. Which teachers do you want us to stay away from?

RG: (laughing) I think maybe the nuns that used to discipline me might be the ones that…
HH: Got a particular name?

RG: No, I love ‘em all. They…the nuns and the brothers who taught me in school are the reason why I was U.S. attorney, mayor, and have even a chance of running for president of the United States. They were my…I mean, my gratitude to them is enormous, even the ones that had to discipline me, of which there were more than a few (laughing).

HH: Rudy Giuliani, always a pleasure.

RG: Thank you.

HH: Look forward to talking to you again soon, Mayor. Take care.

RG: Thank you very much, Hugh.

This wasn't exactly the hard-hitting interview we expected. (We were out, so we weren't listening.) but, he reinforced a lot of what he has been saying. I know that for some, it's hard to get past what he's said in the past. But for us, it's the actions now that matter. If anything, this interview reinforces our position even more. And for our critics out there, take your best shot because we're not backing off of our position. Rudy will have to say or do something pretty egregious for us to recant where we stand.

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

NY Times Gets Rudy All Wrong And I'm Swinging Back

Posted by on Friday, February 23, 2007 5:00:24 PM
 Rudy Giuliani hasn't even fired up his campaign yet, and he's already beating his GOIP opponents in straw polls across the country. Detractors on the Right and Left have come out to balst him (always on the same three or four subjects--abortion, gay rights, gun control, and occasionally on his marriages and divorces), but aside from that there really is no serious criticism. At least with the veracity and intensity that candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have faced, thus far.

The New York Times today stepped up to the plate and swung at him over the fact that he hasn't fielded any tough questions; that he's being tossed softballs:

In a swing through South Carolina this week, Rudolph W. Giuliani chose to campaign at a fire house, which is a little like Derek Jeter meeting with Yankees fans — a most unlikely forum for hostility, or even much skepticism.

Instead of the sometimes barbed give-and-take endured by the other candidates, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, fielded a few questions from the firefighters and police officers who gathered to hear him here. The questions, which began with comments like, “Being in your presence here is just unbelievable,” stuck almost entirely to issues on which Mr. Giuliani is most comfortable, like airport security and border control.

More than the other major presidential candidates, Mr. Giuliani has limited himself to events with narrowly defined, friendly audiences, avoiding the kind of uncomfortable interrogations his rivals have occasionally faced. Aside from a couple of brief swings through diners, including one yesterday in Delray Beach, Fla., he has done little of the politicking that exposes candidates to random sets of people — at shopping malls or train stations — who might be of any political stripe, and can raise any issue.

Really? Shows how much the Times actually pays attention to Rudy and his travels. The Palm Beach Post has just such a story about Rudy meeting the average guy and girl:

Rudy Giuliani may be running for president, but to more than 150 former New Yorkers who came to see him Thursday at a popular deli west of Delray Beach, Giuliani was still their mayor.

Speaking and often shouting in the unmistakable accents of New York, Giuliani was crushed by a score of fans as soon as he stepped from his car.

They held up cameras and cellphone cameras. They pushed. They shook his hand. They admired his wife, Judith. And most of them were Democrats, who will not be able to vote for him in the GOP primary.

"I came down from Singer Island just to see him," said Carol Hurst, who held a small, hand-lettered sign with the words, "Rudy for President."

He is seeing the average American, and many people still are endeared to him because of his accomplishments in Gotham, and his stellar leadership in the wake of the worst attack on American soil ever. Detractors say that the 11 September fame will fade in the coming election cycle, but it's been six years since that bloody Tuesday, and people still haven't forgotten about him, or what he did. He's not unafraid to answer any questions from the public, thought the Times does get one thing right in their story:

“For now it’s O.K., but he can’t follow that strategy indefinitely,” said Fergus Cullen, the Republican chairman in New Hampshire. “People in New Hampshire, Iowa and a couple of other places really demand a chance to hit you between the eyes, and to ask a pointed follow-up if you don’t give a straight answer. And there’s a curveball in every group.”

Yes, those in the main primary states are going to ask tough questions, but this is a man who dealt regularly with an openly hostile press in Gotham. Rudy didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He will, as the campaign goes on, lay out a platform for people to see. And yes, he'll get pointed questions on social issues. Do we think those questions will derail his candidacy? No, we don't. Simply put, would we rather have a man who is pro-choice on abortion, and a hawk on defense, or a woman who is more vehemently pro-choice (read: pro-abortion), and a dove on national security? Do we want a man who is fiscally-responsible, or a woman who stated the following in San Francxisco in June of 2004:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Gotta love that liberal, wealth redistribution mindset there. And Rudy hates that. He proved it in NYC when he reformed the welfare offices there. No longer were they simply the place to go pick up that "guv'mint" check; they were places where people learned what it was to look for a job, make a resume, and learn what to do in an interview. After Giuliani was done, welfare rolls started to decrease.

It's no secret that Marcie and I are behind Giuliani early. And yes, we're to whack away at a few critics of his (no offense to Ramesh on this, we just disagree. BTW, nice kiss of death there) but that's because we're supporting a guy we think can win, and we think he can unify the base.

No, not everyone will be on board, but John McCain is only going to force the base to stay home. Until we see more from Mitt, we really can't decide on him one way or the other. We like him, but we're just not sure about him. And no offense to the rest of the also-rans, but they don't stand a chance. They either lack the name recognition, or are one-issue candidates. You need a platform, and they just don't have one.

So, for the time being, we're going with Rudy. As of 1 March, our readers will see the case we laid out for him (provided the column meets the Chief's approval).

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

Addressing The Democrat's New Plan: They Cannot UNDECLARE A War

Posted by on Friday, February 23, 2007 3:37:17 PM
 I would like to address a Washington Times piece from today that displays the next tactic the Left is attempting to push through their defeatist strategy:

Senate Republicans today said the Democrats' latest idea to end the war in Iraq -- by "repealing" the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq -- still won't work because they remain unwilling to do the only thing they really can: cut funding.

"Congress has one clear cut responsibility with regard to combat, and that's funding. And that's the one thing the Democrats don't want to do. They want to dance around this thing," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. "That's the one thing they will absolutely not touch."

Mr. McConnell has planned an afternoon press conference.

Republicans think Democrats lack the 60 votes needed for a proposal being drafted by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, and Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat.

The Biden/Levin plan would replace the 2002 authorization "with a new, more limited authorization" that would take all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008, a Biden aide said.

Change the AUMF? This is technically unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to declare war, not repeal such declarations. The only recourse they have is to cut the funding for the mission. They cannot usurp the president's "Commander-in-Chief" authority as enumerated under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. I am aware of no confliuct this nation has ever been in where Congress has attempted such a move. They did not try that in Vietnam. they simply cut the funding for the mission.

Furthermore, were they to try such a tactic, the initiative still has to go to the president for approval. He will not sign it; his veto pen will be ready, and I doubt the Democrats could muster the necessary two-thirds to override the president's veto. Even if they did manage to pull that off, the president's powers during wartime are explicit. He is the "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and he is charged with the protection of the nation. The courts have NEVER questioned his national security authority (this was made evident in the NSA TSP issue). Yes, one judge did challenge the program, and the Sixth Circuit Court immediately stepped in and stayed that decision, pending a review (which they have yet to release).

Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Carl Levin; these people are not the president though they act like they are. They do not make the calls when it comes to our war effort. Their votes stand, and their only choice to end the war is to end the funding for it, which forces a withdrawal of troops. Additionally, the debates over this issue serve no purpose other than to send a message to the world that this nation's political establishment is divided -- one side wants our retreat and the other understands the gravity of the war, and what defeat means.

These people cannot simply change the tune because they dislike it. They paid their dime. We are in this war to win it, and protect this nation from the Islamofascist animals that want us dead. The Democrats may think that withdrawal and isolation will buy us some time, but it will not buy us security; and that time will be limited before they start attacking us and our interests again. For the Left, history started in January of 2001, and all the attacks up to that point are not relevant ot their thought process. For the rest of us, we understand that those attacks signalled to the nation we had an enemy in the world that wanted us dead. They hate us. And apparently, so do the Democrats, otherwise why would they be shrieking for a withdrawal; enabled by a number of "white-flag" Republicans that did not receive the right memo regarding the 2006 election defeat.

Should the Democrats mount this strategy of attemtpting to change the AUMF, they are in for a serious fight, and one that very well could end up in the USSC's chambers. The primary thing the Democrats miss is there is a difference between passing legislation, and authorizing or declaring war. Neither is the same, nor do they abide by the same rules. Once war has been declared, the Constitution kicks in and grants the president greater powers as Commander-in-Chief. Congress cannot simply go back, say "Our bad, we don't want this war," and "undeclare" it. It does not work that way.

Congress, especially the Democrats, forget that they do not bestow the powers of the presidency on George W. Bush. The Constitution does that, and they cannot trump the Constitution. They cannot legally pull the AUMF, and force a withdrawal. Senator McConnell is quite correct. This is grandstanding. They lack the intestinal fortitude to actually call for a vote to cut funds for the war. They are going to "dance around it" and pretend that they can do something which they cannot.

While we appreciate the urgency of Sabrina's pieces while we were on vacation regarding Jack Murtha's antics, he completely lacks the courage of his convictions. He can come up with whatever he wants in committee, but taking it to the floor is an entirely different matter. Add to the fact that he is not going to be the sole author of the defense appropriations. He still has others on that committee that he must answer to. His idea to bleed our mission slowly will not fly. We seriously doubt the president would sign such legislation that purposefully ties his hands, constrains the troops, and puts the overall mission in jeopardy.

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

Females and Firearms

Posted by on Friday, February 23, 2007 2:47:07 PM
 One of my favorite blogstresses (female bloggers, for those unaware of the lingo) is Mary Katherine Ham. Today, she highlights a subject that is as important to to me as it is to Thomas: Females and firearms. Cam Edwards has three stories about self-defense involving women using firearms. This one caught my attention:

And then there’s the story of Suzanne Carson. I know a little more about her story because I recently spoke to her on “Cam and Company”. Suzanne’s married and a mother of two in the small town of Coalfield, Tennessee. Last Friday, about ten minutes after Suzanne’s husband left for work, she heard a noise in the kitchen. Leaving the bedroom where her three-year old was sleeping, she walked down the hallway and looked through the kitchen to see a man trying to get in through the back door. Suzanne dashed back to her bedroom and retrieved a pistol, then ran back to the kitchen in time to see the door opening and the man coming inside.

Suzanne warned the man that she had a gun, but that didn’t stop him. Either did the first shot Suzanne fired. The man kept coming into the home, closer to Suzanne and her children. Suzanne fired two more shots before the man turned and ran out the back door. She and her children were unharmed. In fact, her three-year old child slept through the entire incident, though her four-year old son heard the sounds of shots fired.

We see, read, and hear about the gun violence that occurs daily thanks to criminals, but the MSM never really touches on stories like that of Mrs. Carson. She defended herself and protected her children from a home invader. No one knows what the man was breaking into the house for, but I am sure it was not for tea and toast first thing int he morning.

Like Mrs. Carson, I did not grow up in a house with firearms. My father was completely against them being in the house. My brother bought me my first pistol, and made it a point to take me out to the range so I would learn how to use it. Now, Thomas and I make it a point to hit the range once a week. We have concealed carry permits, and rarely leave the home without at least one of us being armed. This is not our of paranoia; this is called security. WE can defend ourselves better than the police can. Besides, how many thugs on the streets are going to give you the time to dial 911, and wait for the cops to show up.

Thank you no, but a firearm is an excellent deterrent against crime. And most criminals are a bit more hesitant when they see a woman with a firearm as opposed to a man. Why? Because most women are taught to aim for center-mass, and unload the firearm on their assailant. Whether that is six rounds, ten, or fifteen, the bad guy is about to have a very bad day.

I thank God I have not yet been forced to pull my firearm to defend myself. Having one means a level of responsibility that should not be taken lightly. In your hand is a tool that can end a human being's life. But depsite the gravity of that knowledge I will not hesitate to defend myself or Thomas. The Left in this nation despises the armed populace, and for good reason: As long as we are armed, they cannot simply step in and make this nation whatever socialist dreamworld they would like. More importantly, and armed citizen will not be a victim, and does not need the government to protect them. They can do it on their own, and in a far more expeditious manner than they can.

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

The Telegraph's Take On Rudy: The Right Man In The Right Place

Posted by on Friday, February 23, 2007 2:07:26 PM
 Captain Ed found an interesting story from the Telegraph on Rudy Giuliani. It seems that there was a correspondant in South Carolina when Rudy was there addressing the crowds.

He is running for the White House in 2008 but it was that fateful day in 2001 that will define his candidacy. "On September 11, 2001, the terrorists who attacked us wanted to achieve two things," he said as the South Carolina audience hushed. "They wanted to kill a lot of Americans and they wanted to break our spirit."

More than five years after the al-Qa'eda attacks, amid gloom and division over the Iraq war, there is a nostalgia for the heroism and solidarity that they sparked.

As New York's take-charge mayor, Mr Giuliani is seen as the epitome of a spirit that was not broken.

That memory of him, etched in the US psyche, has propelled Mr Giuliani, 62, into his surprise position as early front-runner in the Republican field for 2008 as he presents himself as a leader who can be trusted "when they attack us again". ...

... Whereas his rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney are engaged in attempts to disavow previous statements and recast themselves as social conservatives, Mr Giuliani's pitch is that "for most it's never about one issue" and consistency is preferable to pandering.

"I believe you've got to run based on what you are, who you really are," he told The Daily Telegraph. "I find if you do it that way even people who disagree with you sometimes respect you."

Mr Giuliani noted that his pro-choice abortion position had not changed in nearly two decades. The former mayor declined to draw the contrast himself, but Mr McCain supported the Roe versus Wade abortion ruling as late as 1999 and Mr Romney was pro-choice in 2004 but now declares himself pro-life.

"I'm just telling you the most honest answer to the question, which is the same answer I gave in 1989," Mr Giuliani told The Daily Telegraph. "I would advise my daughter or anyone else not to have an abortion. I'd do anything I could to help and assist with an adoption. I would like to see it ended but ultimately I believe a woman has a right to choose."

Whereas the Democratic contest has already descended into angry exchanges between advisers to the three front-runners, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, the Republican contest has remained gentlemanly thus far.

"No comment on anybody else's candidacy," Mr Giuliani said firmly when he was invited to criticise his opponents. "We've got some terrific people that are running."

Paradoxically, Mr Giuliani is able to appear as the candidate of optimism by repeatedly referring to America's darkest day. He even injected notes of humour into his 9/11 stories as he spoke against the backdrop of a massive US flag that had been flown in an A-10 Thunderbolt over Afghanistan. He told how a fire crew drove 700 miles to New York from Indianapolis to help, and he saw a Chicago policeman directing traffic in Manhattan. "Probably he was sending people up to the Bronx that are still driving around trying to figure out where they are," he said.

Critics will naturally give us Hell over our stance in supporting Rudy Giuliani right now, but as Captain Ed pointed out in his piece, he would rather have someone he wants to vote for as opposed to someone he has to hold his nose over. That is the key to thir presidential election. Not only will this be an election that the main focus will be on national security and the war, but also on domestic issues, too like taxes, the economy, and judges. A commenter over at Race 4 2008 said that he is happy Rudy wants constructionist jurists, but he wants to see some names.

Excuse me? Some people are simply nuts. That was not asked of Reagan, or of Bush, or of the current Bush while he was running, so why does this question come up now. Rudy Giuliani defended both the Roberts and Alito nominations in op-eds. He supports their viewpoint of the Constitution, and what the proper role of a judge is.

Going back to Captain Ed, I agree. We need someone who will want to make us head out to the polls. The brow-beating we took in 2006 showed two things to the GOP that I am not sure they have learned yet. First, listen to your constituents. When they start shouting that you are out of line, listen to them. Second, run better candidates. The RINOs this last time around were booted in Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine. Both put targets on their backs when they jumped into bed with John McCain over the Gang of 14 deal.

The GOP base is not happy with it's elected representatives right now. The NRSC pledge got the Senate's attention, but the NRCC is having a hard time grasping the idea of what a backbone is. This folly is only going to contribute to the base's ire come reelection time. And if the base is not happy with the people already in DC, there is a good chance they may take it out on the presidential nominee by doing what they did in 2006: They will simply stay home.

That is why we need a figure like Rudy in the race. As it stands right now, he is the clear front-runner in almost every straw poll we have seen. He is appealing to almost every faction within the conservative's camp. From mainstream social conservatives, to more liberally-minded ones, and even a couple far-right fringe conservatives. Does this mean he is home free for the nomination? Hardly. A lot can happen in two years, and all it takes is one, serious gaffe, and a candidacy can go down quicker than the Titanic.

I'd also like to address a long-running debate being carried on by Ramesh Ponnuru, and Rudy supporters, espcially DaveG at Race 4 2008: Ramesh does not believe the social conservatives would back Rudy because of his stance on certain issues. WE think they will. Thomas and I spent close to three weeks researching Rudy, looking at his stand on issues, digging through his record, and taking a look at his early campaign stops. From all that we have seen, social conservatives are not running from him. Indeed, there is this small snippet from the Telegraph:

Several Republicans said they differed from him on key issues but would vote for him nevertheless. "I don't like his position on gun control," said Ken Crenshaw, 63, a retired soldier. "I've belonged to the National Rifle Association for 35 years so I'm pro-gun. But he's a proven leader so he's the right man at the right moment."

We seriously think that while the suspicions are founded and rooted in fact, that being Rudy is not a 100% conservative in some people's estimations, he is still a conservative nonetheless, and the social conservatives are not turning their backs on him. He is giving them hope for the future, and they recognize in him something lacking in the other candidates: Leadership that is not subject to public opinion. It ois rooted in doing what is right at the time that such decisions are called for. (This would be one of the reasons why Rudy openly criticized the Congress on its cowardly non-binding resolution.)

On a side note, we are hearing rumblings that if Newt does jump in this race, it will be later this year, possibly sometime around September. While we respect the former Speaker, we are not too sure he can pull off a win against this field of contenders. Oh, and the Democrats lost someone out of their race today. Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race citing money problems for the resignation of candidacy.

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

IA and CA Straw Poll Numbers: Rudy Maintaining His Lead; TROUNCES McCain in CA

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:38:28 PM

The Race 4 2008 blog has new numbers up from Iowa and California polls up. First, I will touch on the Dem side:

PRESIDENT - IOWA - DEM PRIMARY
John Edwards 24%
Hillary 18%
Barack Obama 18%

PRESIDENT - CALIFORNIA - DEM PRIMARY
Hillary 34%
Barack Obama 24%
John Edwards 16%

Do not criticize the fact that I have only listed three candidates. In Iowa, Tom Vilsack is the only other candidate in double digits (he pulled in 14% behind Hillary and Obama), and no one else is in double digits in California. What I see above is that the nomination on the Democrat side is going to come down to Hillary or Obama. They are too close to each other, and they are feeding off of each other. Edwards, as far as we are concerned is a non-issue. He is an "also ran," and has little chance of taking the nomination. Remember, the modern Democrats do not nominate losers from the past. They did not do it in 2004 with Lieberman, and they will not do it in 2008 with Edwards.

Now, for the GOP numbers:

PRESIDENT - IOWA - GOP PRIMARY
Rudy Giuliani 29%
John McCain 22%
Newt Gingrich 11%
Mitt Romney 9%

PRESIDENT - CALIFORNIA - GOP PRIMARY
Rudy Giulaini 41%
John McCain 17%
Mitt Romney 10%

I included Governor Romney in the Iowa polls because he is one of the three main contenders for the GOP nomination. Former Speaker Gingrich was a surprise to see in the Iowa straw poll, and mostly due to the fact that he has not stated he is running yet. But look at those numbers in California. I guess Senator McCain is not as popular with those in California as he thought he might be. Rudy is trouncing the snot out of him. It is much closer between the two in Iowa, and likely due to the social conservatives there. But the point is Rudy IS appealing to a vast array of people on the conservative side. Also, for those who have been asking questions regarding Rudy's stance on immigration reform, I refer to this story from the New York Sun today about Rudy's trip to South Carolina yesterday. The key 'graph:

On immigration, Mr. Giuliani said America had to do more to enforce its borders, including building both a physical and "technological" fence, a position that drew applause from the crowd.

He is the first candidate we are aware of to advocate the physical fence. No other candidate (aside from possibly Hunter, Tancredo, and Gingrich--again, he is not officially in the race) to ennunciate that stance. No disrespect to Messrs. Hunter and Tancredo, but they are polling badly early on. Much of this comes from a lack of recognition, and being primarily one-issue candidates. Holding firm on that one issue is good, but one issue does not make a platform.

Neither Mitt Romney or John McCain has emphasized the need for the fence. In fact, a post from Allah @ Hot-Air brings us up to speed on the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill:

Senators and lobbyists are putting the final touches on a comprehensive immigration-reform bill that includes an easier citizenship path for illegal aliens and weaker enforcement provisions than were in the highly criticized legislation that the Senate approved last year…

Mr. Kennedy drafted this year’s bill with help from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and outside lobbyists. Mr. McCain and the outside groups share Mr. Kennedy’s support for increased immigration and leniency for illegals already in the country…

The one Republican who all agree has been part of the negotiations from the start is Mr. McCain, who is running for his party’s presidential nomination. This worries Republicans who say that Mr. McCain is the last Republican they want representing their interests in negotiations with Mr. Kennedy over immigration legislation.

If this bill goes through, John McCain can kiss his chances at the GOP nomination good-bye. And if Rudy is smart, he will verbally crucify John McCain over his stance on immigration reform. Next to national security, immigration reform is among the top issues that voters want to hear about; it is an issue that goes hand-in-hand with national security.

Marcie

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

All In The Name Of Money: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Pushes For Selling f-16 Parts To Hugo Chavez

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:07:59 PM
 This is postively reprehensible, even for a piece of garbage like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas:

(Hat-Tip: Bryan @ Hot Air)

A U.S. congresswoman called on the Bush administration Wednesday to reconsider its ban on selling parts for U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to Venezuela, urging improved ties between the two nations.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told reporters that she was making the first U.S. congressional visit to Venezuela since President Hugo Chavez's December re-election with the message: "I want an immediate repairing of the relations between the United States and Venezuela."

Jackson Lee described Venezuela as a friendly nation that the U.S. should cooperate with and said that the F-16 jets, which are built in Texas, was an issue of concern to her constituents in Houston.

Pledging to "personally go back and raise" the issue, she called for the U.S. Congress "to reconsider sanctions on the F-16s."

The U.S. State Department has banned arms sales to Venezuela, including parts necessary to maintain its fleet of F-16s, citing a lack of support by Chavez's government for counterterrorism efforts and its close relations with Iran and Cuba.

Venezuela has since begun receiving the first of 24 Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets as part of approximately $3 billion in military deals that Chavez has signed with Moscow.

She said her fact-finding mission to Venezuela was part of an effort by a new Democrat-controlled Congress to show that "Venezuela has many friends in this new Congress."

"We're here to re-establish friendship," she said.

Ahem. Let me get this straight. Rep. Lee wants the United States to reconsider it's position on NOT selling weapons to a thug and dictator that is openly hostile to this nation? And because the planes are made in Houston? Oh, yes. That is thinking for you.

"Please Mr. President, sell this nut his weapons. Let us be friends with him as we rebuild his military so he can kill and threaten more people, including us, because the voters in Texas want us to make those parts."

I can imagine the rather loud "click" she would hear at the end of that phone call. But she is serious, ladies and gentlemen, and she reminds me a lot of Jack Murtha. Here we have Rep. Murtha trying to kill the funding for the surge, trying to hamstring the president, and force a defeat on the US in this war, and on the other hand we have Rep. Lee wishing to "repair" relations with a nation that is hostile to us. It sort of reminds me of trying to make nice with a rabid tiger. It is simply not feasible.

Hugo Chavez is as anti-American as dictators can get. Did Rep. Lee miss his tirade against the nation and Pres. Bush before the UN's General Assembly? Even Charlie Rangel denounced the clown from South America. But not Rep. Lee. She wants to hop into bed with the guy, just like the rest of the political "heauxs" in the Democrat party.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chemical Weapons Factory Taken Down In Iraq: "No Boom Today" For The Animals

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:22:59 PM
 I hope this news sticks in John Murtha's craw. It seems that our efforts in the new offensive in Iraq are working. We just took down a chemical weapons site today, so the media won't be reporting on another chemical weapons attack today:

U.S. troops raided a car bomb factory west of Baghdad with five buildings full of propane tanks and ordinary chemicals the military believes were to be used in bombs, a spokesman said Thursday, a day after insurgents blew up a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the chlorine attack Wednesday — the second such "dirty" chemical attack in two days — signaled a change in insurgent tactics, and the military was fighting back with targeted raids.

"What we are seeing is a change in the tactics, but their strategy has not changed. And that's to create high-profile attacks to instill fear and division amongst the Iraqi people," he told CNN. "It's a real crude attempt to raise the terror level by taking and mixing ordinary chemicals with explosive devices, trying to instill that fear within the Iraqi people."

But he suggested the strategy was backfiring by turning public opinion against the insurgents, saying the number of tips provided by Iraqis had doubled in the last six months.

One of those tips led U.S. troops to a five separate buildings near Fallujah, where they found the munitions containing chemicals, three vehicle bombs being assembled, including a truck bomb, about 65 propane tanks and "all kinds of ordinary chemicals," Caldwell said. He added that he believed the insurgents were going to try to mix the chemicals with explosives.

The pickup truck carrying chlorine gas cylinders was blown up Wednesday, killing at least five people and sending more than 55 to hospitals gasping for breath and rubbing stinging eyes.
On Tuesday, a bomb planted on a chlorine tanker left more than 150 villagers stricken north of the capital. More than 60 were still under medical care on Wednesday. Chlorine causes respiratory trouble and skin irritation in low levels and possible death with heavy exposure.

Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, an Iraqi military spokesman, said the investigation into the attack was still under way.

"But what is obvious to us that the terrorists are adopting new tactics to cause panic and as many casualties as they can among civilians. But our plans also are always changeable and flexible to face the enemy's new tactics."

Ah, but according to the "White-Flag Republicans" and the cowardly Democrats (I'd prefer Sabrina's title of "Defeatocrats," but it's her word not ours) we're losing. We were losing before the president proposed the surge, as the new offensive was unfolding. We have taken the fight back to the streets and driven out much of the Mahdi Army, or sent it into hiding. Al-Sadr took off for Tehran, unwilling to back up the courage of his convictions in the face of the coalition push. Combat deaths are down, as are civilian casualties. We're winning, but the Left likes hyping it's antiwar, chicken-s**t mantra.

Keep it up, clucks. There won't be a report of a chemical attack today from the animals in Iraq.

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

A Win For Our Side: No Habeas Rights For Our Enemies

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:12:51 PM
 I spotted this when Thomas was working on the LA Times "cover-blowing" story that James Taranto was writing about. This is another point made on James Taranto's "Best of the Web Today" piece:

"A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that hundreds of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts," the Washington Post reports:

In its 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld one of the central components of the Military Commissions Act, the law enacted last year by a then-Republican-controlled Congress that stripped Guantanamo detainees of their right to such habeas corpus petitions. Lawyers have filed the petitions on behalf of virtually all of the nearly 400 detainees still at Guantanamo, challenging President Bush's right to hold them indefinitely without charges. Yesterday's ruling effectively dismisses the cases.

The decision, Boumediene v. Bush (PDF), is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has been playing a sort of cat-and-mouse game with Congress over habeas corpus for enemy combatants. As Eugene Volokh explains, in Rasul v. Bush (2004), the high court ruled that Gitmo detainees have a statutory right to habeas review, but left unanswered the question of whether they have such a constitutional right.

Congress responded to Rasul by passing the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which, among other things, stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by Guantanamo detainees. But the act did not specifically say whether it applied to habeas petitions that had already been filed. In 2006 the court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that it did not apply retroactively--i.e., the courts retained jurisdiction over already extant habeas petitions.

Last fall Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which again stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions, and this time stipulated that it "shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."

This is what the D.C. Circuit upheld yesterday. The ruling is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may be forced to address the question of whether alien enemy combatants captured on a foreign battlefield have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. Barring a change in the court's personnel (and Justice John Paul Stevens is getting awfully long in the tooth), the decision is likely to be made, sometime in the next couple of years, by one man: the protean Justice Anthony Kennedy.

We discussed the habeas issue in depth when the Military Commissions Act was passed, and it was due entirely to the fact that the Left was whining that a right had been denied to our enemies. That, as far as we are concerned, was the so-called tale of the tape on the Left. They were literally arguing that our enemies needed to have the same legal protections that we as citizens are granted under the Constitution. The idiocy of such arguments is beyond imagination.

This case will indeed be challenged up to the high court, and we are right to be a little worried about how the court will rule. Justice Kennedy is literally the swing voter on the court right now, and he could end up making this a 5-4 decision in favor of giving our enemies habeas rights. Of course, our other thought is that the Supreme Court may refuse to hear the case at all, which forces the DC Circuit Court of Appeal's decision to stand. That, we believe, would be the more preferrable scenario. That way the nuts on the high court do not screw this one up.

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

Iran Blows Off The UN; Still Enriching Uranium

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:51:08 PM
 Are we supposed to be surprised that Iran has not yet complied with UNSC Resolution 1737, and ended enrichment of uranium?

Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program instead of complying with a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze it, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Thursday in a finding that clears the way for harsher sanctions against Tehran.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report.

Although its information was based on material available to it as of Feb. 17, a senior U.N. official familiar with Iran's nuclear file, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue, suggested the IAEA's conclusion remained valid as of Thursday.

The IAEA detailed recent activities showing Tehran expanding its enrichment efforts - setting up hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall and bringing nearly 9 tons of the gaseous feedstock into the facility in preparation for enrichment. It added that Iranian officials had informed the agency that they would expand their centrifuge installations to have thousands of them ready by May. ...

... The six-page report also said that agency experts remain "unable ... to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran's nuclear program" due to lack of Iranian cooperation.

That, too, put it in violation of the Security Council, which on Dec. 23 told Tehran to "provide such access and cooperation as the agency requests to be able to verify ... all outstanding issues" within 60 days.

The report - sent both to the Security Council and the agency's 35 board member nations - set the stage for a fresh showdown between Iran and Western powers.
In Tehran, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammed Saeedi, said: "Iran considers the (IAEA demand for) suspension as against its rights, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and international regulations." ...

... U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply concerned ... that the Iranian government did not meet the (Wednesday) deadline set by the Security Council."

"I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the Security Council" as soon as possible, he told reporters in Vienna, saying Iran's nuclear activities had "great implications for peace and security, as well as nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

In addition to the sanctions, the U.S. government has been raising the pressure on Tehran on other fronts, from arresting Iranian officials in Iraq to persuading European governments and financial institutions to cut ties with the Islamic Republic. ...

... But other top Iranian officials used harsher language, and none showed signs of compromise on the main demand of the U.S. and other world powers - a halt to enrichment and related activities.

"The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of nuclear technology," Iranian state TV's Web site quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday.

With the United States bolstering its naval forces in the Gulf and cracking down on Iranians within Iraq it says are helping Shiite militias, concerns have grown that Washington might be planning military action.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said "the only sensible way" to solve the crisis was to pursue political solutions, but that he could not "absolutely predict every set of circumstances."

Still, "I know of nobody in Washington that is planning military action on Iran," Blair told BBC radio. "Iran is not Iraq. There is, as far as I know, no planning going on to make an attack on Iran and people are pursuing a diplomatic and political solution."

We are doing what we can to resolve this diplomatically, but it is exceptionally difficult to do when one side refuses to engage. Furthermore, the futility of playing the diplomacy game with Iran is now more than evident. Iran is not going to shut down its program, and it is not going to comply with the United Nations. again, the toothless dog passed useless sanctions against Iran--made useless thanks mostly to Russia--and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thumbed his nose at the world.

While I can understand Prime Minister Blair's statement is designed to quell fears we may end up striking Iran, that option must never be taken off the table. Especially in the face of Iran's continued interference in Iraq. On that particular issue, we are close to a breaking point. There is going to come a point where enough is enough, and we will engage Iran militarily over their involvement there. And I do not simply mean the hardware being supplied by them. I am talking about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that has been caught or killed in Iraq already.

Diplomacy is nice. It is a novel concept for civilized nations. Iran is anything but civilized, and the more we dawdle with them, the more this world is beginning to look like 1934 all over again.

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

LA Times Reveals Details About CIA Pilots

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:41:50 AM
You just gotta love the MSM. Not only do these people act with irritating arrogance, but they get away with the most egregious breaches of professionalism and trust. Today, Patterico points out that the LA Times has released personal information one three CIA pilots that are being charged in Germany. Here's the link to the Times piece.

James Taranto noticed it first, and took them to task:

The Los Angeles Times boasts that it has identified three CIA pilots who are facing kidnapping charges in Germany over a 2003 counterterrorism operation there:

The names they used were all aliases, but The Times confirmed their real identities from government databases and visited their homes this month after a German court in January ordered the arrest of the three "ghost pilots" and 10 other alleged members of the CIA's special renditions unit on charges of kidnapping and causing serious bodily harm to Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, three years ago.

None of the pilots responded to repeated requests for comment left with family members and on their home telephones. The Times is not publishing their real names because they have been charged only under their aliases.

But it does offer plenty of details about them:

In real life, the chief pilot is 52, drives a Toyota Previa minivan and keeps a collection of model trains in a glass display case near a large bubbling aquarium in his living room. Federal aviation records show he is rated to fly seven kinds of aircraft as long as he wears his glasses. . . .

His copilot, who used the alias Fain, is a bearded man of 35 who lives with his father and two dogs in a separate subdivision. . . .

The third pilot, who used the alias Bird, is 46, drives a Ford Explorer and has a 17-foot aluminum fishing boat. Certified as a flight instructor, he keeps plastic models of his favorite planes mounted by the fireplace in his living room in a house that backs onto a private golf course here [in a town of 13,000 the Times identifies in its dateline].

Remember all the outrage when Robert Novak "outed" Valerie Plame, who apparently worked a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.? Here the L.A. Times is publishing extensive personal details on three men who have actually done dangerous work defending the country. Where's the outrage?

Now, who's going to call The Times on the carpet for this one? I'll give Taranto his point that they didn't ID them by their real names, but if the paper could gather this much information on these guys, who says our enemies can't. Who says that the Germans and Italians seeking them can't find them the same way. The Times has done a disservice with this report. This time, let's hope the Justice Department locates it's nuts to prosecute the paper for the release of this information. The only difference between the Plame case and this one is that when Novak wrote his column and revealed who she was, she wasn't covert any longer. These guys still are, and are still in the employ of the CIA.

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

Syria Building Up For A Confrontation With Israel

Posted by on Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:09:22 AM
 Syria is is building it's military back up to take on Israel.

(Hat-Tip: Captain Ed)

Syria has embarked on an "unprecedented" effort to bolster its armed forces with Iranian and Russian help, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported Thursday.

Damascus has large numbers of surface-based missiles and long-range rockets, including the Scud-D, capable of reaching nearly any target in Israel, the report said, and the Syrian navy has received new Iranian anti-ship missiles.

Haaretz also said Russia was about to sell Syria thousands of advanced anti-tank missiles, despite Israeli charges that in the past Syria has transferred those missiles to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Syrian officials did not immediately comment on the Israeli reports, but President Bashar Assad said in a television interview immediately after the fighting that Syria was preparing to defend itself.

Israeli defense officials confirmed that Syria had ordered new stocks of the anti-tank weapons after noting Hezbollah's successful use of them against Israeli armor in last summer's fighting in south Lebanon.

Syria also ordered new supplies of surface-to-sea missiles after Hezbollah used one to hit an Israeli warship, killing four crewmen, off the Lebanese coast last July, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The officials said Syrian ground forces adjacent to the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights had been reinforced after the outbreak of last year's Israel-Hezbollah conflict and had not yet fully returned to their prewar footing.

Israel and Syria are officially at war, though there have been no open hostilities between them for decades. Syria has demanded the return of the Golan, which Israel captured in 1967 and later annexed, as the price for any peace deal.

Israel says it will not discuss a formal treaty with its northern neighbor as long as Damascus continues to back Hezbollah and the radical Islamic Hamas group.

Syria wants the Golan Heights back, and Israel wants Syria to quit funding, supplying, and protecting Hezbollah. Israel is not pleased with the mutual defense pact that Syria has with Iran, either, and we doubt that Iran is going to quit sending them munitions.

The wrench in the works that has us seriously questioning what is going on is Russia's involvement. Granted, Putin looks like he'd like a return to the cold War days, and his hands have been involved with a variety of dirty little deals in the region that can only be viewed by us as hostile to the West. Maybe President Bush did look into his eyes, and maybe he did trust him. We, however, do not.

This does not bode well for Israel. The Scud-D missiles directly threaten every square inch of Israel. It also should be wise to note that if Iran is willing to sell them the conventional weapons, how long before they start selling/giving them unconventional weapons?

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

Some Quick Thoughts On Tony Blair's Announcement

Posted by on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:56:03 PM
We're back from vacation, and I just wanted to jump into the foray of Tony Blair's announcement today about a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. The media is shrieking that our coalition is falling apart, and that Britain has turned their back on the US. I have to question the mentality of the analysis by the MSM, and it's due to the fact that all they're listening to is the fact that around 1600 troops are being brought home.

1) They're not going anywhere until the Iraqi security forces are ready to step up. Blair has said that the situation in southern Iraq is better now, and those troops will be brought home when the Iraqi forces are up to par, and ready to go.

2) Why is the MSM claiming that this signals failure? THEY were the ones a month ago stating that 21,500 additional US troops wouldn't make a difference in Iraq, but now the loss of 1600 British troops signals defeat?

The disingenuous MSM seems to have a problem understanding the war. This is evident. But their caterwauli9ng over this, stating that the mission is now a failure because we're losing some soldiers in the theater, is purely asinine. We really wish they'd get their talking points straight before they trot their people out to sound like ill-informed, uneducated @$$e$.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…1516Next »