About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Edwards On Meet The Press: The Boy Still Does Not Get It

Posted by on Monday, February 05, 2007 2:41:04 PM
 John Edwards is out on the stump already. Yesterday, he showed up on Meet The Press where he and Tim Russert had a little heart-to-heart. Jim Geraghty and Dean Barnett have both taken him to task. Here are some excerpts, starting with a video regarding his war vote back in 2004:

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today, and you do know, there is—there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

(End of videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s a year and a half into the war.

SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm. Perfect—that’s a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through—I was—at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war.

So, after the defeat of Kerry/Edwards, and after his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer John Edwards decides to sit down and contemplate his vote for war? What, was he too busy to weigh the consequences of his vote then? If he was unsure of it then, why not vote against it, and when the Democrats demanded the second vote (they have demanded three, up to this point), if he had finished contemplating things, he could have changed his vote. After all, it is not like the AUMF was ever really threatened with failing. Only the moonbats voted against the bloody thing. And he could have explained it away as not having "all the information" for the first vote. With the second vote he would have had it. He could have straddled the fence far and wide, and still managed to get away with it. But this was not about being right. It was about being politically correct, and he regretsmaking the decision because those supporters of him and Kerry were not happy with their war vote and waffling in 2004.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were in the Senate, would you vote to cut off funding for the war?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I’m not running for the Senate, I’m running for president of the United States. What I would do is, is say we’re not going to fund an escalation of this war. That’s what I think we should do. I would not cut off funding for the men and women who are part of our troops and serving in, in, in Iraq. Now, we know that a significant number—in fact, I think most of the troops who are part of the surge—and by the way, there was a disturbing report in the last couple of days that, you know, 20,000-plus troops may turn into 40,000 troops, because there’s 20,000-plus combat troops who will have to be supported. I think that’s—will be very surprising to most of America who heard the president speak about this.

Point one, the surge is not an escalation. They are more like reinforcements to finish their recent offensive. An escalation would be far larger--an inordinate amount of troops, and closer to 100,000-plus. Point two, and this goes to Edwards' inexperience in military matters, but when you send extra troops aborad, they need to the support staff. Those in Iraq now would not be able to support the forces there already, plus the surge. And I do not think it would be in the excess he is saying it is. It may be as many as what is being sent, but I think it is actually less than the full complement of 21,500. And a third point is that most of the surge is not there already. Many are (I believe the last figures we saw were around five to six thousand are there). If "most" of them were already, then why did the Senate, over the last two weeks, screw around on resolutions that would not have mattered.You cannot stop what has already been deployed, right?

MR. RUSSERT: But why shouldn’t voters in Democratic primaries say, ‘On the big issue of the war, Obama was right, Edwards was wrong’?

SEN. EDWARDS: I was wrong. They should say that. And the question becomes,‘Who’s best suited to be president of the United States? Who has the depth, the maturity, the judgment to be president of the United States?’ And what I would say to anybody is I take full responsibility for what I did, I should be held accountable for that, but I do think it matters when you’re willing to be open and honest with voters about what you’ve done. I think it’s really important that the next president of the United States—and I’m not criticizing anybody, certainly not Senator Obama. But I think it’s really important that the next president of the United Sates be a good, decent, honorable human being who’s open and honest with the country because that is the only way we’re going to re-establish trust between the American people and the president. And I also think it’s going to be really important to re-establishing trust between America and the world, because the president is, in effect, the personification of America. And when the president, what I believe—one of the things I do believe the president needs to do is, in the first 100 days, travel the world, not just meet with leaders, but speak to the people of the world the way great American presidents have in the past. The famous John Kennedy “ I am a Berliner” speech is an example. And for that to work and for us to spread a message that America doesn’t tolerate diversity, we embrace diversity, different cultures, different faith beliefs—it’s the heart of who we are—that spokesperson is going to have to be somebody that the rest of the world looks up to and respects.

With his statement about the president needing to be fair and decent he's attacking the sitting one. President Bush has done his best with what he's been given. I do believe him to be a decent and honorable man that chose to be president, and wanted to preside over a period of peace. The man never wanted to go to war, but that war was delivered to our doorstep, and there was no way he was to continue the failed policies of the previous administration. Indictments clearly did not sufficiently frighten our enemies into ending their bloody jihad against the United States.

Secondly, the idea that the JFK speech that Edwards cioted was some sort of "goodwill tour," as he is proposing, it pure idiocy. The "I Am A Berliner" speech was given shortly after the Soviets erected the Berlin Wall. The speech was given to show the United States's solidarity with the people of West Germany, and thoroughly tossed the gauntelet down in front of the Soviets that we were not going to back down in the face of their expantionist Communism. Edwards needs to research a little history before injecting something into his spiel that has nothing to do with the subject he was discussing.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been open and honest about her support of the war in Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: I don’t know the answer to that question, honestly. I, I can’t—I can’t—I don’t know what’s inside her, her head and her heart about this. I can’t tell whether there are political calculations going on.

I find it most telling that he will not confront her. And because of this, I have to question if any of the Democrats are going to confront Senator Clinton. If they are not going to go after her or her ideas, then the Democrat primaries are going to be pretty boring.

MR. RUSSERT: But if Democrats voted to cut off funding for the troops who are part of the surge, the accusation would be they’re not supporting the men and women.

SEN. EDWARDS: But there’s a very easy way to do this. In fact, I saw you questioning Senator Kennedy on the show about this. Senator Kennedy actually has a bill that, that—what it says is, in order—if it’s passed into law—in order for more troops above the levels that are there now to be put into Iraq, the president would first have to come to Congress—and they use their funding authority as the basis for this—would have to come to Congress and get their permission. And I don’t believe the Congress would give him that permission under the circumstances. So there—there’s an easy, straightforward way to do this, but we, we have to have the strength to do it.

Um, no. The president should not have to go to Congress with his hat in his hand asking them for anything. The surge is still part of the Iraq phase of this war, and Congress has already given its assent on that matter. Yes, he has to obtain the extra funding, but that is in the overall defense appropriations for 2007. He does not have to get their permission. He already has it, and it included his singular vote for the use of military force on Iraq. And we know the Democrats will try to block it. Their attempt to do so does not come from some new intelligence gleaned in recent months (unless they count the faulty ISG report), but rather from political partisanship. They CAMPAIGNED on a withdrawal of troops, remember? That stance came out long before the ISG report, or any other report detailing the problems we have had to deal with over there.

Based on what I have cited above, and what is still in the interview I do not think I could take him seriously as a contender for president. He is a former one-term senator who loved to play the political schmoozing game. He is a trial lawyer--an ambulance chaser, if you will--who knew how to hit the right notes for his clients, and his pocketbook. And based on the boast that came later in the interview that he would withdraw 40,000 troops from Iraq and halt the surge, I do not think he understands the depth of the war. He has jumped on the "Withdrawal Bandwagon" that Senators Obama and Clinton have created, and he is not thinking clearly on the subject. (Lord knows we love Joe Biden for his comedy, but her recently drilled Edwards on his boast he would withdraw troops, and agreed with our position on it.)

If Edwards supporters point to this interview as an example of his "presidential" stature, then I have to seriously question their sanity. Especially given the fact that Edwards in this interview admitted he would raise taxes, then raise taxes on Social Security; in essence giving this nation a higher tax increase than Bill Clinton did, and to date he had the highest increase in the nation's history. No, I am sorry, but Edwards is hardly a serious contender for the presidency. Like Joe Biden, he will be among the king of comedic gaffes, which should not come as a surprise to anyone. Had John Kerry not been upstaging him in 2004, he would have been the ticket's court jester.

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

The Kos-Kids Defend Mr. Arkin: Evisceration Ensues On Moonbat

Posted by on Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:45:16 PM
 The Kos-Kiddies are on the loose and praising William Arkin's inept and classless attack on the troops. We knew this would not take long before the raving, barking moonbats of the blogosphere would step up. The post is authored by "n00161" and like Mr. Arkin he, too, dives into the absurd.

Hat-Tip: Charles Johnson @ Little Green Footballs.

All hell has broken loose on the right wing Milblogs concerning an article William Arkin wrote at the Washington Post. In this article, Arkin dared to cross the line and say that the Military is out of line when it criticizes the American Public for being against the war. The military’s place is to do the bidding of the United States citizenry .. period! It is not for them to criticize the American population for deciding they no longer want to fund a war.

This, of course, is a point I have brought up many times and the Milblogs when crazy then. You, the military, are the servants of the people. That is what you signed up for. We send you to war and we bring you home. We tell you when to wake up and when to go to bed. If you do not like that, GET OUT. But, that is the life you chose.

The next thing the milblog right wingers were upset about was when Arkin called our Military a mercenary force. Well, guess what, it is!! To get people to fight this war we have had to add all sorts of additional benefits, bonuses, insurance etc. The only way to get people to go was to pay them a lot more - the definition of a mercenary. Also, if you count the 100,000 or so “contractors” over there, that is even more evidence of a mercenary force. I called it at this post last year.

If the military is going to “take on” the American public by saying we have no right to change how we want to deploy them then they have joined the fight. I have said all along, and in the book, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War the idea that the American military has lost contact with the United States Citizens has been proven. They have. Arkin called it right!

The poster (or is it poseur) is ill-informed in his first paragraph. First off, the US military does not answer to the American citizenry. The buck, for them, stops at the president's desk. A civilian CANNOT give anyone in the military an order. That right and privilege is reserved for the president alone, as Commander-in-Chief. Secondly, the American population (what an obtuse generalization) has NOT told Congress they want the war defunded, and the troops bnought home. If the misconception stems from the midterm election results, I suggest the author take a closer look at why the American public rejected any further Republican leadership in Congress.

The war was a small point of their frustration. The majority of our ire was focused on the feckless leadership from the Republicans. From the Dubai Ports deal to the Gang of 14; from over-spending of taxpayer money to a failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform; from the refusal to abide by the higher ethics called for in Congress to the insane amount of pork spending and earmarks. The Republican Congress did this to themselves. The war had little to do with it.

Indeed, he is correct in his second paragraph on only one point. If the soldeirs do not like the life they lead, and would prefer to have a regular life, then when their enlistement is up, quit. Leave. There is no shame in admitting that the military is not what you thought it would be (though I must question the mentality of people who think that; they are, after all, trained to defend this nation, and that means being trained how to fight and to kill). But again, his allegation that WE, THE PEOPLE control the military is unfounded. They answer to the president, to the JCS, DoD, Pentagon, and their commanders in the field. I cannot order a general to withdraw. Were that possible, the military would be, as my brother is fond of saying, "a walking cluster-f**k." (Whoever the author is, it is apparent he lacks the basic knowledge regarding the military and how it works.)

His third paragraph is positively laughable. If one is to take the most basic definition of a "mercenary" (according to the Merriam Webster's 9th Collegiate dictionary sitting on Thomas's desk) it is "a soldier hired into foreign service," or "hired for service in the army of a foreign country." The troops in Iraq serve American commanders, in the service of this nation, not Iraq. Their loyalty is to America. Do we have to pay them? Of course we do, according to the US Constitution. The Preamble purposefully charges the federal government to "provide for the common defence" which means an army.

The soldiers will join out of patriotism--performing a duty that is higher than themselves (which is why serving in the military is seen as a selfless sacrifice)--but they need to be paid. They will not risk their lives for free, nor will the force their families to starve. The troops need to be paid. But their pay is meager, as I noted in my lengthy post this past Thursday. My brother earns a paltry $40,000 a year to put his butt on the line in defense of America. He could quit (which he has said he will not until this war is over), come home, and be a successful and prosperous lawyer, but his love of this nation and understanding that this enemy will not simply go away after being thwapped in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper keeps him going.

And I must address his naming of conractors in that paragraph as well. Those men work for private security companies providing protection for VIPs going to Iraq outside of the normal military itself. The military should not be responsible for those people. The contracted security forces are, for the most part, former US military people--usually from the Special Operations community--that have one simple mission: protect those that go abroad to check on their business enterprises there. These men, likewise, are not mercenaries. They are not fighting for another nation. They are paid a much fairer wage than our soldiers are, and serve the companies they are contracted with. Their loyalty to the nation is as deep as a soldier's is, and I refuse to question them in their endeavors.

I must disagree with the fourth paragraph, not only in the point he thinks he makes, but in citing a book by an author that seemingly has contempt for the military, which is entirely misplaced. Andrew Bacevich served in America's military through the Vietnam Era, and has basically accused the United States of relying far too much on her military in the late 20th Century, and into the 21st Century. Mr. Bacevich fails to note that we do employ diplomacy, and much of the time it is to our own detriment.

We have acted diplomatically with some of the nastiest, most repugnant regimes around the globe. Notably and recently Iran, North Korea, and the Palestinian Authority. All of these regimes have engaged in human rights abuses and terrorism. Yet, we are willing to give them chance after chance to mend their ways. We watch the United Nations pass useless sanctions against them. And yet these regimes still continue on their merry way. Do I endorse an attack on these nations? Absolutely not. Iran is the lone exception as they have been caught in Iraq attacking our soldiers, providing weapons and munitions to our enemy there, and continue to generally interfere with our efforts there. Let the president decide if Iran should be dealt with militarily. But to cite that author, and claim that the case has been proven--that Mr. Arkin's argument that the military is telling us to shut up--is pure fantasy.

The military leaders that have criticized Congress (and be default the American people) are doing so because they are tired of a meddling body that is content to interfere with the mission they were tasked by the president to do. They answer to him, not Congress. But their criticism is not directed towards the American people. They know that the public, for the most part, lacks the knowledge of what they are going through abroad. Their information comes from the media (of which the military is extremely critical of because the media tends to focus on the bad news rather than the good; a fault of the media, to be sure, but as the old dead-tree industry adage truthfully states "if it bleeds, it leads).

We knew the moonbats would come out swinging in Mr. Arkin's defense. It was simply a question of when they would. The author also makes another glaring mistake. He accuses the Mil-bloggers of leading the charge. I witnessed the response by the blogosphere over the issue. And if you refer to my post on the subject and scroll down to the second update I put up, I listed only TWO mil-blogs covering the story. The rest of the big guns in the blogosphere covering the issue were the standard poli-bloggers.

Before I put that update up, I checked the big mil-bloggers. Most had not updated in a day, or so, and have yet to do so. As of today, Wretchard @ The Belmont Club addresses it in part, but focuses on a scathing evisceration of the Kos piece that is the focus of this post. BlackFive also nails the Kos Kiddie. I can find no other big mil-bloggers touching on this subject.

The outrage arose from the general populace, not the mil-blogs. That is because we, as American citizens, understand what has been asked of the men and women abraod. We know that their job is not easy, and for the most part it is a thankless job. As I stated in my original post on this subject, the military asks only two things of us: Support them in their missions, and to give them the necessary means to win. They do not criticize the public as much as they criticize the media, or as much as they gripe about their commanders. This is typical of the average soldier, and nothing that we should not expect. But the Kos author's idea that Mr. Arkin was correct in calling our troops mercenaries is as idiotic as one can get. They are anything but mercenaries.

Marcie

ADDENDUM: I forgot to add this. At the end of Kos post authored by "noo161" is a poll asking readers if they agree with Mr. Arkin, or if he went too far. I will save you the trouble of clicking on it to view the results. After a total of 261 votes, 190 say that Mr. Arkin was out of line. Only 47 agree with Mr. arkin and "n00161." Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you looney moonbats.

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

Team Edwards "Blogmaster" Caught In Whitewash Of Her Past Opinions

Posted by on Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:17:04 PM
 Wow! We have entered our second month of the year, and Professor Reynolds takes notice of Beltway Blogroll. It seems as though they may have just uncoveredthe first scandal of Campaign 2008:

The central character: Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, who this week accepted a job as "blogmaster" to the presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards. Part of her job is to write at the campaign blog.

The scandalous storyline: Like all bloggers, Marcotte is fast and loose with her opinions, and her opinion of the infamous rape allegations against lacrosse players at Duke University didn't sit well with some folks. When Marcotte started catching flak for that opinion, she apparently deleted it and started altering other comments at Pandagon.

Marcotte's move to the Edwards campaign and the subsequent hiring of another blogger, Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister, as netroots coordinator won praise from her netroots friends.

"What this move symbolizes in the blogosphere is that Edwards team understands how to move to the left on the issues," wrote Jerome Armstrong of MyDD. "The early move by Edwards to consolidate the liberal wing of the Democratic party at the beginning is very smart."

But now Marcotte's attempts to airbrush her past are fast becoming a black-eye for Edwards, even as he earned raves yesterday for a speech at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting in Washington. "Edwards should demand Marcotte’s immediate resignation from the campaign," wrote K.C. Johnson of Durham-In-Wonderland, who blogs about the Duke case and acknowledged being a supporter of Barack Obama, an Edwards presidential rival.

Let us set aside the petty rivalries between bloggers and who they support, and focus on the point of this piece. Ms. Marcotte's actions are inexcusable. There is a point where when you put up a post, even if you do not like it, you should stick with it. You may catch flak and criticism for it, but you do not go back and delete entries. Nor do you go back and whitewash your past.

Bloggers do it better than the MSM, and subsequent obtuse moonbats in the dead-tree industry trying to "play blogger." We stand on a higher level than they do not only because of our tenacious fact-checking and insightful commentary, but because we are honest. We have a "virtual creed" that we abide by (including "The Law Of The Blogger"). Ms. Marcotte's attemtpts to literally remove elements of her history is beyond the pale, and completely dishonorable for a blogger.

Patrick Ruffini, now the e-campaign director for Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, said Marcotte crossed a "bright red line" into bad taste. And this insight from Betsy's Page, gets to the heart of the issue:

Hiring a campaign blogger is now necessary for each campaign. But this episode shows how treacherous the waters can be when a candidate just dives in and picks someone. For now Edwards and his campaign will be in the position of having to defend what this woman has written in the past and explaining why he found her particular writing style so suitable for his campaign.

Other blogs covering the story include Brainster, Hit & Run, Outside the Beltway, Overlawyered and South of Heaven. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit also has called attention to Marcotte's woes.

Some people think the controversy is ridiculous. "You're opposing Edwards' candidacy by criticizing his blog manager, for her opinions posted on a different blog, about a state-level criminal case?" one commenter wrote at Overlawyered. "'Foul language' -- that's what you base your decisions on in the most important political race in the democractic world? And that's what it took to distract you from an issue in any way related to the actual candidate: 'comic joshing' about the house he lives in?"

Ahem. Those who want to criticize bloggers for bringing this to people's attention may do so. But the point is that when questioned regarding her stance on the Duke non-rape case, Ms. Marcotte did not deflect the inquiries away, or make a simple statement announcing her opinion on the matter. No, she went back and started altering her history. It is one thing to go back through a post and correct a typo or two. It is something entirely different to go back and literally whitewash aspects of who you were. She could have easily deflected the inquiries by simply saying that she had shelved her opinion of the matter until the trial was over.

Even though many people in the blogosphere are not working professionals, per se, the vast majority are, and they are experts in a host of realms. (I cannot begin to count the amount of lawyers who blog, or historians, or formerly/currently-serving soldiers, etc.)Point being bloggers bring to the table a whole new level of media coverage. We are quick to note news, quick to analyze and fact-check the media reports, and we can stir up a hornet's nest quicker than most people are willing to recognize. Ask the NRSC. Ask William Arkin. Ask Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and John Kerry. They have all been on the receiving end of 'swarms.

Ms. Marcotte should have known better than to play this sort of game. It might have gone unnoticed by a virtual no-name blogger than is lucky to pull in 20 or 30 readers a day. But she ceased being in that category (no I do not know her original traffic numbers, and I do not care as it is not the point I am making) when she joined Team Edwards. With the spotlight on her as his "blogmaster" she had to know there would be a level of scrutiny put on her, and her professionalism. And her actions speak volumes.

Not even Kos pulled a stunt like this when he was working with the Lamont campaign in 2006. And for all the faults we can lay at Markos Moulitsas-Zuniga's feet, a lack of professionalism is not one of them. He may be uncouth and rude; snarky and nasty; but he is anything but the sort that would go back and paint over his past. He is proud of his Screw Them screed, and I am sure he is proud of his latest missive where he leaps off the edge of reason, and agrees with William Arkin. Say what you wish about Kos, but no one can accuse him of the unprofessional behavior exhibited by Ms. Marcotte.

I must concur with those opening up with both barrels against Ms. Marcotte. Team Edwards should request her resignation. If she refuses to, then she should be fired. There is no place for such behavior--whether they are a blooger on the right, the center, or the left. Such behavior gives a black eye to all of us because readers will suspect bloggers of doing this regularly. And that, ladies and gentlement, is the furthest thing from the truth.

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

NIE Released; Iraq War Critics Unhappy They Did Not Get Their Way

Posted by on Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:26:26 AM
 Before we get this wonderful day of chores underway I thought I would stop and take note of a news story out of The Washington Times about the new National Security Estimate that has just been released, and many on Capitol hill are not happy with it. Namely those that are opposed to the war in Iraq:

A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq warns that pulling U.S. troops out of the country too soon would lead to a collapse of the Iraqi military, outside intervention and the creation of safe havens for al Qaeda terrorists.

An unclassified summary of the 90-page estimate, "Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead," stated that U.S. and allied troops "remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq."

"If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly, ... we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation," the report stated.

The conclusion is a blow to Iraq war critics in Congress and elsewhere who are advocating a pullout of U.S. troops.

"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the [Iraqi Security Force] would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries ... might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable," the report stated.

Also, the al Qaeda terrorist group in Iraq would try to "use parts of the country -- particularly al-Anbar province -- to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq."

Additionally, Turkey could launch a military incursion if there were no U.S. or allied troops to block Kurdish attempts to control northern Iraq, according to the report.

White House National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley said President Bush agreed with the report's conclusion about the danger of removing troops too rapidly.

"That's why the president concluded that while the current strategy was not working and it was a prescription for slow failure, an American withdrawal or stepping back now would be a prescription for fast failure and a chaos that would envelop not only Iraq but also the region and could potentially, by giving al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq, result in risk and threats to the United States," Mr. Hadley said.

This estimate has to stick in someone's craw. Speaker Pelosi's maybe? Or how about Majority Leader Reid? the simple fact of the matter is that this estimate should not have even been needed. (The only people who seem to write more reports than college students are those in the government.) Simply put, this report is a no-brainer. An early withdrawal, before the job was done, would obviously be a mistake. We are so close to being done that to pull out now, all that is listed in that report would likely happen.

The interesting note in the report--at least I found it interesting--was the inclusion of Turkey. We rarely hear about the tensions on the northern border. Turkey has been a bit testy with the Kurds in the north, and was worried that we would give them their own "province." For a while, the Kurds and Turks have not been on the friendliest of terms. On more than one occasion last year, Turkey accused the Kurds of jumping the border, and making incursions into their nation. The Kurds denied such allegations.

A premature withdrawal from Iraq would not just abandon the nation to the forces within, but without. Iran has been manipulating the Shi'ites in Iraq, through al-Sadr, and their only goal is to topple their blood enemy. In doing so, not only would that turn Iraq into a new haven for terrorism, but it would be come a proxy nation, much like Lebanon is, for Hezbollah. I disagree with the estimate's idea about a new safe haven for al-Qaeda for the sheer fact that if Iran were the nation to bring Iraq to its knees, al-Qaeda would be the literal "marked man"; they are Sunni as opposed to Iran's Shias. (That was a simple reminder for Mr. Reyes heading up the House Intel Committee.)

The key point that I think needs to be stressed to the Iraqis is the estimate's portrayal of what might happen should there be a pull out before the job is done. It would leave a fledgling, virtually inexperienced Iraqi military/security forces to deal with the Shi'ite militias all by themselves; a virtual lambs-led-to-the-slaughter scenario. The estimate states that neither force would survive long. Likely, the only ones who would survive such violence would be those members that zipped out of the Iraqi forces, and joined the militias. But the estimate's conclusions cannot be disputed. A pull-out now, or over the course of the next few months, would turn Iraq into the Wild West as sectarian violence would plunge the nation into a religious civil war where the outcome is murky, in terms of what would result in the aftermath. The estimate wastes little time in concluding that Iraq would fall to those within trying to tear it down.

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

Friday Blog Rounds: Around The 'Sphere In Five Minutes

Posted by on Friday, February 02, 2007 4:11:51 PM
 Fridays are always slow news days. I never have quite figured it out, but news that comes out on Fridays, unless they are bombshell stories, never make it to see the light of Monday, and are buried under mounds of Sunday talk-show nabobbing. So, in honor of the slow day, I thought I might take a trip around the blogosphere, and highlight a couple of the more interesting stories:

First up is Charles @ LGF who hilights the Mr. Arkin's non-apology apology from the WaPo blog. It is clear that someone was not simply called on the carpet, buyt likely cannot sit down until his backside grows back.

Hugh Hewitt is next and he marks an important aniversary in the blogosphere. That being the tenth anniversary Bleat by James Lileks.

Over at Instapundit Professor Reynolds notes an important piece people should be reading. That would be the new dispatch from Michael Yon in Iraq. Do not forget to hip the tip jar on the way out. He is there on his OWN dime.

Kim Jong-Il's son is the focus of a piece by Captain Ed. We are still trying to figure out if her "ronrier" than daddy now that daddy is not happy with his jet-setting ways.

John Hinderacker @ Power Line also takes note of the apology from Mr. Arkin, and spanks him roundly for it. He does note that this one seems to have the hands of the editors behind it. Likely because they probably saw how much trouble he has caused fgor them over the last four days. Personally, I still think he needs to be fired.

Michael Johnsons' new TownHall column touches on the most important high court cases from 2006, and shows us that the war to return to a sensible judiciary is far from over.

And, to round out this post (unfortunately the only one of the day for us) we have a story from Bryan @ Hot Air. It seems that Speaker Pelosi does not dislike the military, especially when they make such great chaffeurs.

Also, do not forget to stop by Common Conservative and check out all the great authors there in addition to our own column.

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

BREAKING NEWS!!! John McCain Finds His Brain

Posted by on Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:58:40 PM
This is literally BREAKING NEWS. John McCain, along with Joe Lieberman, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Pete Domeneci, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, and Pat Roberts, has introduced a resolution that calls for solid, considerate, and achievable benchmarks and vows to give General Petraeus the things he needs in Iraq to accomplish the mission. I'm skipping all of the "whereas" within the resolution. You guys can view that on your own. What matters is what is "resolved." (Part of this is due to the fact that the pdf generated by Captain Ed doesn't want to play well with me, and won't do the "cut-and-paste" game, so I'm typing this up on my own):

Resolved, That it isthe sense of the Senate that---

(1) Congress should ensure that General David Petraeus, the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq, and all United States personnel under his command, have the resources they consider necessary to carry out their mission on behalf of the United States in Iraq; and

(2) the government of Iraq must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated in the preamble of this Resolution.

OK, now the question to what the benchmarks are. They are quite reachable, and quite fair. This is conveying to me (despite my earlier statement on Hugh's show regarding McCain and his track record) that McCain saw the head-on collision that was happening between constituents, and the defeatists in the Senate. The benchmarks include:

--Ten billion in cash for reconstruction.
--Deploying a "significant number" of Iraqi forces to secure Baghdad
--Speeding up the transfer of responsibility for provincial security
--Disarmig militias and ensuring the loyalty of the state forces to the Iraqi constitution
--Equitable distribution of resources (oil revenues)
--Building an effective and independent judiciary
--Enforcing the law without regard to sect or ethnicity
--Conducting long-overdue provincial elections
--Building a process for amending the constitution that is fair to all

(TY Captain Ed, for saving me the keystrokes.) This resolution sounds good. It solves the biggest problem that we had with the others. It gives General Petraeus the troops he needs. It ensures the troops in Iraq that they'll get the necessary reinforcements that are needed to win this final stage of the Iraq phase of the war. I'm quite surprised at this resolution, and pleasantly so. I have never been a fan of John McCain, but this gives me a little hope that the base might actually be making an impact on the man.

I'm not saying he's had a full turnaround on this. I still don't trust him. But this shows me (and Marcie agrees) that he is as firm on the war as any conservative in the Senate. And having those above signed onto it reinforces the legitimacy of this resolution. It's also enough to drag the other moderates out of Warner's and Biden's camp, and sign on board with a move that sends a message that we're staying until the job is done. Granted, it sets the benchmarks, and Iraq has to stand up and recognize that we're not there indefinitely. Like the president's speech outlined, if these aren't met, we're out of there. We're not going to hold their hand for fifty years waiting for them to step up. Either they want their nation free and independent, or they want the chaos to continue. If it's the latter, then we're not staying.

We are throwing our support behind this measure and first thing tomorrow we'll be making phone calls. I urge ALL of our readers to follow suit. Make those calls. Send those e-mails and faxes. Tell the GOP senators to support the McCain resolution.

Congressman John Boehner: (202) 225-6205 Fax (202) 225-0704. E-mail here
Congressman Roy Blunt: (202)-225-6536 Fax (202)-225-5604 E-mail here.
Congressman Eric Cantor: (202)-225-2815 Fax (202)-225-0011. (No e-mail available.)
Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541 Fax: 202-224-2499. E-mail here.
Senator Trent Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.
Senator Jon Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.
Senator John Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.
Senator John Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.
Senator Gordon Smith: Phone: 202-224-3753 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.
Senator Norm Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here

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

So, Our Troops Are Mercenaries?: Another Barking Moonbat In The MSM Sounds Off

Posted by on Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:43:31 PM
 I was s lightly behind in news coverage yesterday (homework and all, you know?) but as I perusing yesterday's blogs, I came across this from Captain Ed, and it is in regard to a the WaPo's in-house jer, er, blogger named Willaim Arkin. Mr. Arkin put together a rambling diatribe from January 30th. In this piece of trash, Mr. Arkin states:

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

Now, I am aware that a few of the normal moonbats we engage in the chat rooms have tried to defend this as a joke. Yes, yes; a joke much like John Kerry's idiotic statement that if you do not do well in school you will be sent to Iraq. Personally, I prefer that Mr. Arkin leave the humor to those better accustomed to it, like James Lileks or PJ O'Rourke. He is not, in any way, shape, or form funny. And that joke went over like a lead balloon.

Personally, I cannot buy the "joke" excuse. It is evident if one reads the entire post that Mr. Arekin is simply another of the MSM-affiliated,antiwar loonies. I am greatly offended at the insinuation that our soldiers are in any way mercenaries. My brother was one year away from graduating from law school, with a lucrative and satisfying career on the horizon. September 11th occurred, and like many men, he decided his country needed him more than any law firm did. He signed up in the Army, applied and was accepted for Ranger school, and he is currently serving in Afghanistan.

Now, Mr. Arkin claims that we pay our soldiers good money. My brother is an E-5--a three-stripe sergeant--and he makes a little over $48,000 a year (as of 2007 DoD figures). Because he is in a combat zone, he receives and extra $225 a month; an average of $2700 extra a year. BUT, they are required to deposit $10,000 a year into a special savings account, earning a guaranteed 10% interest per year. So, all in all, my brother makes as much as a middle management guy in an average corporation. He has no dependents here at home, so he receives no extra benefits from the Army. I seriously contest Mr. Arkin's idea that our troops are well-paid considering the job they have been asked to do as volunteers in our Armed Services.

These people are asked to do a virtually thankless job. All they ask is our support and the means with which to carry out their mission. They are not asking for the sun and the moon (like some idiot journalists proclaim). Does Mr. Arkin think that these people like having to be away from friends and family? Being shot at by someone not simply content with killing them, but desecrating their bodies, as well? If he thinks that then he is far more obtuse than I had initially believed.

Ironically, Mr. Arkin shows he knows nothing regarding the military. Not only does this rambling, barely coherent piece not acknowledge the truth of military personnel, and their lives, but he fails to note that he misuses the word "mercenary." A mercenry is a soldier who sells his skills to a nation that is not his own, and his loyalty is only guaranteed as long as the nation in question can meet his price. I am sure the troops would prefer to make much more money in the service for this nation. What Mr. Arkin fails to note is that we have a volunteer military where these people join, for the most part, out of a love of America, and an understanding that somebody must defend this great nation.

And he would be wise to mind his manners. The same people he calls mercenaries are the ones who are fighting to preserve his freedom to sound like an @$$. And yes, I do mean that. Regardless of his political ideology, he is an @$$; he need not be registered in that party to emulate its mascot. I can report that if you do read his piece (which I could barely stomach), I encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to also read the comments. Unlike many on the Left, Mr. Arkin at least has the courage to allow comments. Granted, I do not know if he has actually read them. I am sure his next post will revolve around the "right-wing vitriol" within his comments.

Of course only someone on the Left would assume such a thing. The people commenting on his post take him to task for calling our troops mercenaries. And if I were the editor-in-chief of the WaPo, Mr. Arkin would have been in my office explaining himself. Sure, I would have allowed the piece to go forward, but I would have demanded he also print an apology to the families of soldiers overseas for slandering our troops in a most virulent way.

Marcie

UPDATE: I failed to note that this was, as Allah put it--"the WaPo column heard ’round the blogospheric world". Mr. Arkin did not simply raise the ire of a couple of bloggers, but a good majority of the center-right blogosphere. And when we get mad, we do not simply opine. We start digging. And lo and behold, Ace of Spades,/li> has done precisely that.

Ace has dug up information regarding Mr. Arkin that the average reader NEEDS to know:

He broke the story that the Bush administration has ordered contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against seven countries and in certain battlefield situations.

He broke the story of a classified defense report outlining the obstacles to an American attack on Iraq.

He insists he's not a journalist.

In fact, he's an activist who works for the liberal group Human Rights Watch. He also does work for the Air Force. He's also an academic, an author, a newspaper columnist and a talking head.

From his home in the mountains of Vermont, William Arkin seems to have mastered one of the great juggling acts of the multimedia age -- persuading news organizations, advocacy groups and the Pentagon, through sheer smarts and a bulldog personality, to take him on his own terms.

"Sometimes I even write a story and get all of them mad at me at the same time," says Arkin, 46. "Any institution is uncomfortable with someone they don't control."

"The hydra-headed Arkin," as Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, calls him, "is an interesting example of this new species of the crossover analyst. He can plausibly claim to be the country's leading civilian authority on aerial bombing, especially civilian casualties."

With an admission like this, one would think he works for the New York Times. But wait, it gets better:

In "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World," Arkin discloses and briefly defines 3,000 military code names.

Some of them are still classified. Each one represents a discrete dot in the ever-growing clandestine world of Delta Force and SEAL commandos, of spy satellites and electronic worldwide eavesdropping. Once fleshed out and connected, Arkin hopes, the dots will reveal the invisible world where billions of dollars have been spent to fight terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001, without the scantest of public debates.
This is Arkin's effort to challenge the wisdom of letting the government make so many crucial decisions in the dark.

"You either believe in democracy or you don't," said Arkin, the author of 10 other books and a columnist, military analyst and former Army intelligence officer who now works out of an office in Vermont . "There's no question that the fundamental problem that led to 9/11 was compartmentalization and secrecy -- government agencies hoarding information as power and not communicating with one another, even at the highest level."

What gives him the right to reveal classified information? Who the Hell does he think he is. I am SICK of journalists deciding that every man, woman, and child in America needs to know classified information that they do not need to know. There is a reason for having clandestine secrets like these. For Mr. Arkin, he may believe this to be some insane idea of patriotism, but I would rather not have our enemies knowing about things like this. THAT is why they are classified. Not because the governmen wants to keep secrets from its citizens, per se, but because the more people who know something, the greater risk in their divulgence.

Ace shows that he has worked with the Air Force. Were I in the DoD, I would terminate all connections to this man. What he has to offer is not wiorth the risk of having another covert operation or program blown. He says it is the secrecy that caused 9/11. That is noy entirely true. A working immigration and naturalization department would have stopped them dead in their tracks. They were here on expired visas, and had more than one run-in with authorities prior to 9/11.

It is now perfectly clear to many, including myself (and I am sure that Thomas will concur when he reads this post) that Mr. arkin has no real purpose in life other than to hurt this nation. He has disclosed secrets, he berates our troops and slanders them, and basically accuses our government of engaging in conspiratorial programs to control us. If the WaPo had wanted a conspiracy nut, they should have hired Art Bell. At least Mr. Bell would not have been revealing classified material in books and columns.

Marcie

UPDATE #2: The focus of Hugh's Weekly Standard piece from 2003 is an overview of who Willaim Arkin is, who has been affiliated with, and he gives a rundown of his attacks on Gen. Boykin. READ IT ALL. Also, John Hinderacker @ PowerLine weighs in on the entire Arkin piece in yesterday's WaPo blog. Michelle has rounds and screencaps of a few of his commenters. She also notes today that in response to the explosion of outrage across the blogosphere, he has doubled down with a screed entitled The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out:

Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I've received, I've never written that soldiers should "shut up," quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

I cannot speak for others, but I can assure our readers (and you may scroll back through this very lengthy piece) that never once did I tell him to shut-up, leave this nation, or "get f@$$d." (BTW Mr. Arkin, that last word has SIX letters in it, not five; I thought this guy was qualified to write for the newspaper. We may misspell a word int he course of a post, but not with a word so frequently used in society.)

On the contrary. My husband and I are Constitutional conservatives. The buck does not stop with Congress, the courts, or the president. It stops at the document that is the foundation and backbone of this nation. Mr. Arkin is perfectly free to sound off, and act like a complete @$$ is he chooses. That is his right. HOWEVER, it is also OUR right to call him out when he makes egregious mistakes in a post. (See above for my detailing of the approximate amount of my brother's pay in the US Army; hardly the "well-paid" people he insinuates.) And between Captain Ed, Allah, Ace of Spades, Hugh, Uncle Jimbo @ Balck Five, Op-For, BOTH posts from Michelle, John @ Power Line, Don Surber, Professor Reynolds, Charles @ Little Green Footballs, (twice),and Stephen Spruiell, I believe the point has been made that Mr. Arkin is not only out of line with his initial column, and his follow-up, but also that he is a simpleton hack writer who let his bias loose and free across his place at the WaPo. His apology for referring to the troops is half @$$ed, at best; utterly disingenuous, at worst.

And he should not be whining about the response he received. He should have known this sort of a response was going to come from families with members int he military, currently-serving soldiers, veterans, and the center-right blogosphere which has been nothing but supportive of the troops and the war effort. If he did not want this sort of attenmtion or response, he should not have slandered our troops in the first place.

Marcie

UPDATE #3: WELCOME Hugh Hewitt Readers! And to Answer Hugh's question regarding whether or not Mr. Arkin should be fired, absolutely. The post on the 30th of January was beyond the pale. His non-apology apology does not rectify the situation, which is his own arrogance responding to critics. Like those on the Left, Mr. Arkin has decided it is a better policy to offer a carrot, and counterattack. What he does not realize is, by definition, he has only proven our point.

His original screed showed that he lacked the intelligence necessary to make the argument he did, and it is because the facts DO NOT support his point. Instead of admitting his failings, he reached back into his decisively faulty ego, and rolled the dice that his response would be enough to end the criticism. That it may, but it will not come from his answer, which supplies noth8ing except more vitriol.

The criticism MAY end due to the fact that he has now proven to his critics that he is, quite literally and inarguably, a barking moonbat; a literal rebel without a clue.

From a business point-of-view, the WaPo needs to cut its losses, and let Mr. Arkin go. His diatribe was enough to bring out the big guns against him. If he does this again, those big guns will be back, and pressure will mount. If the WaPo thinks that it can handle the fallout, then by all means, do as he did, and double down. But to save their already falling numbers, it would be much smarter to cut their losses, and let him go.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Column Up, And A Bonus Read For You!

Posted by on Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:29:52 PM
 
It's 1 February, and our guest column is up at Common Conservative. But this month is special. Normally, you would be reading the normal column that Marcie and I do for the first of each month called "Passing Thoughts In Life's Rearview Mirror." But this month, with things going as they have over the last couple of weeks, we felt it necessary to do something different. It wasn't an easy decision for either of us to reach, but we felt our talents would be best utilized discussing the GOP's recent behavior in the Senate. It's an important issue, and one that people should be paying attention to. Don't worry, because below this opening, where I'll review the other authors at Common Conservative is the Passing Thoughts column we were going to submit, so our "fans" (all three of them, LOL) won't miss a beat.

AS ALWAYS this post will remain at the top of the page for the next twenty-four hours. SCROLL DOWN for updates throughout Thursday.

First up, as always, our esteemed editor Thomas Lindaman starts us off with his very own, personally-delivered State of the Union speech. Pay attention because he makes more sense than the president did.

Tom Adkins addresses what's gone wrong with the war, and why it's taken longer than we expected.

The media's inability to see anything clearly is thge focus of Vincent Fiore's piece this issue, and believe me when I say his point is well-founded. (Just ask CNN if they like presenting terrorist propaganda.)

Patrick Shanahan address "Liberalism's gray zone (which should be where their gray matter is, but apparently not), and talks about how they keep pushing things supposedly scientifically defined, but just can't seem to measure up to true scientific muster.

Robert E. Meyer's piece this issue is virtually connected to our own as he's discussing the same troop surge the Democrats and wobbly Republicans are trying to stop.

Nightmare scenarios are running through Anthony Schiavo's mind as he asks a simple question: Could the violence we're used to seeing int he Middle East on TV possibly end up happening here?

A rose by any other name is still a rose, and JB Williams makes a similar allusion to the idea the Left has reembraced for the third time in "Universal Health Care."

And, as always, Larry Simoneaux delivers laughs and common sense thought. This time it's regarding cloned animals and our sudden need for them. To give you a preview, I'll quote this from his piece: "Somewhere, a group of scientists with a hammer (genetics) decided that "Bossy" looked a lot like a nail." If you just spit your Seven and 7 all over the screen (like I did) then you need to read his piece.

Doug Patton rounds out this issue with a discussion about us bestowing rights on animals, but continually revoking rights that we, as humans, have enjoyed for some time. Definately an eyebrow raiser.

And now, for those three fans, our original column (just to show you were weren't slacking off this month):

Passing Thoughts In Life's Rearview Mirror: January--The Month That Was

Happy New Year, and welcome to 2007. Too bad the news didn't give us a breather at the beginning of the year. Gerald Ford's passing at the end of 2006 was still in the forefront of the news as interviews that he had given before his death were finally revealed. And his thoughts on more than one president were none too kind. Iran still rattled its saber, and Bush Derangement Syndrome still ran rampant throughout the liberal's ranks, and those of their willing media accomplices. But that is just the tip of the iceberg for the news of the month ...

Democrats: Large And, Um, In Charge ... We Think

Yes, the Democrats took control of Congress this month after the loss of Republican control in the last midterms. Nancy Pelosi proclaimed herself the "most powerful woman in America." But did she prove that point? Did she fulfill her "first 100 hours" pledges? No, the Democrats partied for four days, and then decided that the BCS Championship game was important enough to call off all business for one day. Then, prior to the president addressing the nation on the war in Iraq, the Democrats busied themselves with doing absolutely nothing. Yes, we must hand it to our ideological opposites. Not only did they try to pass the same ethics reform package they obstructed under the GOP controlled Congress, but they dithered and dawdled their first 100 hours away, and asked for a redo. If it were not for these people, there would simply be no comedy in the world.

The Ethiopians Know How To Conduct A War

Somalia--the name of the nation harkens us back to 1993 when 18 Army Rangers were killed in a firefight with half of the city of Mogadishu. We retreated from that country after that debacle. But just six short months ago, Islamofacists seized power, and began to make waves for their neighbors. Ethiopia was one of them, and decided enough was enough. After being threatened by the ruling Muslims of Somalia, Ethiopia--with the assistance of pro-government Somali forces--invaded Somalia, and met the Islamofascists head-on. The war between them lasted about two weeks before the final stronghold was crushed, forcing the Islamofascists, already in rout, into hiding. And that was after Kenya reinforced its borders against the retreating Muslim forces, and the US conducted an airstrike with AC-130 "Spectre" gunships that targeted people we believed were being harbored. Granted, the Islamicists vowed to carry on the fight, but when your lines are in shambles, and your best people are trying to outrun 30 mm chain gun fire, you're not sticking around long to fight. The Ethiopians just sent a message around the world--loud and clear--that these animals can be beaten if you've got the will. Hopefully, some people were listening.

No Circus Antics This Time

The Ninth "Circus" Court of Appeals actually acted with adult respoonsibility in it's most recent appeal dealing with seven individuals charged with aiding a terrorist organization. While few noticed this particular case, many practically fell out of their seats when the judges dealing with the appeal refused to accept their defense. The defense? Their activities constituted "speech," and fell under First Amendment protections. The judges were not impressed, and one judge--the honorable Andrew J. Leinfeld--stated that "Sometimes money serves as a proxy for speech, and sometimes it buys goods and services that are not speech. Guns and bombs are not speech." Those words could never be more true, and it is about time that this sort of precedent was set by US courts. Funding terrorism should NEVER be construed as freedom of speech. Were that so, then any terrorist-loving group in America (read: CAIR) could sue to protect their ability to enable these animals. It is not often when the Ninth "Circus" gets something right, and it should be recognized when they do.

Negroponte Steps Down

Anyone who's been paying attention to the embattled Director of National Intelligence knows that John Negroponte has been doing the best he can with what he has. In short, that's next to nothing. The sixteen intel agencies the US has in it's arsenals have been less than forthcoming with solid intelligence for Negroponte to use. After about four years on the job, Negroponte has decided it's time to end his stint there. He's taking a deputy secretary's role at State, which means, probably, he'll be handling the catering side of things. Far better for him there than as the director of a bureaucracy that was doomed to failure from the get go; proving once again that the 9-11 Commission doesn;t know it's @$$ from a hole in the ground. We warned about the possibility of internal conflict when this occured, And we were not alone.Retired Vice Admiral J. Michael McConnell is the proposed replacement, but nothing on the radar shows that anything will change. The best bet we have is to scrap the DNI's post, and force the intelligence agencies to report directly to the National security Council so they can make decisions based on the intelligence in hand, rather than having another bureaucratic go-between eating up taxpayer money. We'll miss Negroponte at the DNI's post, though we rarely recognized him to begin with.

Concessions Do Not Denote Leadership, Or Faith From Supporters

President Bush made a disturbing and irritating decision this month. The NSA had been conducting warrantless surveillance of our enemies here in America, bypassing the FISA courts, in a program that not only legal, but perfectly and logically justified. He has now decided that he will not seek its renewal, and turned over all oversight to the same court he claimed was not giving him the room to manuever in this war. As supporters of this program, Thomas and I joined the cadre of bloggers who presented legal precedent that advocated the program's legality. But rather than stand beside us and foight for it, the president has taken the path of less resistance, and conceded the battle in Congress before it has even begun. This was not an intelligent move on his part. He said that the FISC constrained him too much. Now they have control over the program. This is not something that will be forgotte, or forgiven by the base. We understood it's necessity. The president appears to be capitulating to his adversaries rather than fighting them. And that was not the sort of message the base wanted to see form a man they put so much faith and trust in.

The Offensive Is Working

e're watching the Democrats up on the Hill throwing a hissy fit over the president's plan to insert 20,000 more troops into Iraq to finish our job there. And before a single new boot has hit the ground, those over there right now have taken the gloves off. They've gone into Baghdad, have started killing or capturing members of the Mahdi Army. And it's working. A recent news report shows us that members of the Mahdi Army have taken downt heir checkpoints, they're not openly walking the streets with AKs and other weapons, and they're fleeing Baghdad. Heck, a few of them are even getting their passports, and trying to get our of Iraq. And the people in Baghdad are helping those forces find these people. We recently caught some of al-Sadr's chief aides, including his media director, and al-Sadr is supposedly trying to get al-Maliki to protect him. Aside from al-Maliki's comments that he wishes us to notify and coordinate with the government when we make raids, he's not shielding al-Sadr. So despite what critics are saying we are winning this right now. Will it continue? That depends not only on the Iraqi government, but also if the admnistration can withstand the critics at home.

We definitely had a wide variety of subjects this month to deal with, though the news does not always present us with such opportunities. And much of that news was split between good and bad. There are still things unfolding, such as the new offensive in Iraq and the Somalia conflict, that will continue to play out in the coming weeks and months. We will sit back and watch, reading the tea leaves, and watching life go by in the rearview mirror ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Plea tto The Base To Make Some Calls: Make Them Count Because We're Running Out Of Time

Posted by on Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:27:51 PM
 The Republicans are about to face their Waterloo. Or, as Hugh puts it, a political Gettysburg, and unfortunately there's seemingly no Joshua Chamberlain to help win the day. According to news I caught yesterday, boith sides in this resolution fight claim they have the votes to pass their resolutions. We'll see, but it's blatantly clear to us that the senators we have targeted are deciding to blow off the base, and those who have signed The NRSC Pledge. At this point I'd like to set the Pledge aside. These nutter dolt seem to be ignoring. Fine. They'll learn in 2008 when the funds aren't rolling in, and the base tells them to take a long walk off a short pier when they ring us asking for money.

Let's face some hard facts here, folks. Whereas it would've been nice to see the Congressional GOP put a fight up against the Democrats, they've done a much better job playing the dead dog rather than possum. Senator Cornyn, Senator Vitter, and Senator DeMint are preparing to mount a filibuster, and take the necessary steps to deal with these resolutions, but it's clear that they're not going to have a lot of help.

This has been a problem for the GOP since it took power from the Democrats in 2002. Those in the Senate have played the go-along, get-along game, hoping that if they play nice with the Democrats, everything will be peaches and cream. Now, blame these poor fools for being compassionate, even naive, but because they've acted this way, the Democrats have grown use to the fact that they won't fight. And the base has grown weary of it.

Antics like this doesn't excite the base. It doesn't make us want to go out and fight for candidates. It doesn't embolden us to fight for incumbants. It irritates us. And these people should be paying attention to what their base says. Take a lok at the Democrats. They're listening to the fringe elements in their base that have been calling for a withdrawal of troops, and the ones who threw the biggest hissy over President Bush's 10 January speech about injecting more troops into Iraq. So why is it that the GOP doesn't. That's a question for the ages that even I can't explain. They seem to have lost a will to fight the way that Reagan did for what they believe in.

They frittered away their majority in Congress. They turned into the very party they had campaigned against for so long, and now apparently, they seem content with wandering around in the darkness. We need a modern-day Diogenes with his lamp looking for a Republican with a spine.Laugh if you want, but the base would love to find the next Reagan, and one who could whip the party in line. Until then, we have to deal with those we have, and getting them to do anything is a lot like whipping a mule, and having it refuse to budge.

Threats of withholding funds, and a promise to do so, is a good start but it's obvious that they're unfazed by this. We can hype the 31,000 that have signed on, but they know the base is much bigger. Of course, we can also suppose that there are others in the base already who don't contribute to these major fundraising outlets; having grown tired of the feckless behavior of their party long ago. But still, do the math, and figure that each signer would contribute $100. That's a low number, truth be told. (I can say that because I know how much we donated directly to candidates in 2006, and it was way above $100.) But that's not alot for the Republican fundraisers to really care about. Not when they're pulling in millions upon millions of dollars. They're not going to bat an eyelash at our missing $3 million.

Yes, our side's a bit more intelligent than the Democrats, but there's got to be a better way to translate our ire at those in Congress. Calling them, e-mailing them, and faxing them is good. They DO read this stuff. But I don't think they really get how angry we are at them, especially over an issue as important as this one.And getting them to come back home so we can give them a piece of our mind in person is like whipping that same stubborn mule. I am at a loss for a solution to this problem. That's not usually the case for me. Marcie will attest that when I'm presented with a problem, I break it down,a nd work through it. This is one of those that has me befuddled.

These dolts are moving forward with thiese resolutions. And the only solution I see in this is to make the phone calls to your reps and tell them to sign onto the filibuster against ALL of these resolutions; that includes the benchmark resolutions coming out of the House, and out of Senator McCain's senile old mind. A filibuster is the only thing that can stop these. Below are the constact numbers for these people, again. Call Senator McConnell, and urge him to mount a filibuster--the old-fashioned kind that locks up business in the Senate. Bring in the cots, brew the coffee, and get ready to run in shifts.

I'm not sure of the GOP realizes that this is a make or break moment for them. If the base doesn't see them get damn serious about this issue, then they better not whine and weep when the base rejects them again in 2008. For the most part, we stayed home on Election Day 2006. (Marcie and I didn't, but a good majority of the GOP base did.)We thought we sent the message. We thought we taught the lesson. And apparently for the GOP it didn't sink in. What's worse is that I heard longtime Republicans state they were leaving the party behind, and becoming Independents. Instead of standing untied, the party's crack grew even more.

While we agree with Hugh that the tent's big enough, without a leader in that tent, the moderates seem to defecate whereever they choose without conscience of who they're annoying. Moderates like McCain, Snowe, Collins, Warner, etc., have ticked off the base more often than not, and every time there's a complaint from the base, a moderate (or a group of them) are rattled off by people like us. Yes, we can handle the moderates, but dammit, they've got to learn their boundaries. Certain things go beyond partisanship, and the party as a whole should rally around stopping resolutions like this.

It's time these sorts of shenanigans stop. If they don't, the moderates are going to wreck the party. They'll fracture it, and like Humpty Dumpty, it may be a long time before we're whole again. And while they keep looking at their own careers, and whether or not they're getting praise from the fourth rail that hates them anyway, they'll be abandoning the party; condemning us to minority status for years to come. And at this stage in our history we can't afford that. Letting the Democrats control this war is going to be devastating. These people don't want to fight this war. They'd rather we withdraw completely, and let bygones be bygones. Our enemy isn't going to simply walk away, and leave us along if we withdraw. They're going to keep hitting us until we surrender. And surrender, folks, isn't in America's vocabulary. It may be a key word for the Democrats, but they're not America. We are.

So, I'm urging our readers to contact these fools. Call the ones supporting the resolutions, and do what you have to do to convey to them that they're not making their constituents happy. When their staff spins, silence them, and reinforce yourself. For those that want to end this, guarantee your support to them. Not to the party, but to them. Those in the party dealing with fundraising are looking at dollars in the coffers, not a base's wisdom on an important issue. Please, make it cl;ear you don't want them interfering in the war. Yesterday I posted a letter sent to Black Five, and the staff sergeant was right. Let's get this done so we can all come home, and quit playing games. Our enemy isn't, so why are we?

Congressman John Boehner: (202) 225-6205 Fax (202) 225-0704. E-mail here
Congressman Roy Blunt: (202)-225-6536 Fax (202)-225-5604 E-mail here.
Congressman Eric Cantor: (202)-225-2815 Fax (202)-225-0011. (No e-mail available.)
Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541 Fax: 202-224-2499. E-mail here.
Senator Trent Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.
Senator Jon Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.
Senator John Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.
Senator John McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.
Senator John Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.
Senator John Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.
Senator Pat Roberts: Phone (202) 224-4774 E-mail here.
Senator Gordon Smith: Phone: 202-224-3753 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.
Senator Norm Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here

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

There's Light At the End Of The Resolution Tunnel, And A Soldier Sounds Off

Posted by on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:00:34 PM
There is hope at the end of the resolution tunnel according to The Marine Corps Times. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)

A group of Senate Republicans is mounting a fierce campaign against any bipartisan resolutions opposing the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy, saying a nonbinding measure can only hurt the U.S.

Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina see an opportunity to block the Senate from voting on any of the growing number of resolutions that find fault with the Bush plan — already underway — to send an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad, in an effort to get sectarian violence under control.

DeMint said every injured soldier he has spoken with has had the same view. “The only thing I have had soldiers ask me is to win this thing, to just win,” he said.

“We all know the Iraqis are not ready,” he added, predicting the collapse of the Iraqi government unless U.S. troops levels in Baghdad are beefed up.

It's about time. Call them up, folks, and show your support. tell them you're behind them, and remind them of the 31,544 fellow Republicans that are 100% behind them.

Also, for those who missed Hugh's reading of an e-mail from a staff-sergeant in Afghanistant that was posted up at Black Five. It is cited below, and I suggest EVERYONE read it. I'm personally sending a copy to Senators Biden, Warner, McCain, and Representative Boehner. Maybe these dolts will finally get the message.

Things that I am tired of in this war:

I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.

I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.

I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”

I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.

I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.

I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.

I am tired of following the enemy with drones that have cameras, and then dropping bombs that sometimes kill civilians; because we could do a better job of killing the right people by sending a man with a high powered rifle instead."

I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support me when I see them with their mochas and their PX Bags walking down the street, in the middle of the day, nowhere near their workspaces.

I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.

I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.

I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.

I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.

I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.

I am tired of soldiers who are stationed in places like Kuwait and who are well away from any actual combat getting Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion when they live on a base that has a McDonald’s, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Baskin Robbins, an internet café, 2 coffee shops and street lights.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who take it out and "measure" every time they want to have a piece of the action with their helicopters or their artillery; instead of putting their egos aside and using their equipment to support the grunt on the ground.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who are too afraid for their careers to tell the truth about what they need to win this war to their bosses so that the soldiers can get on with kicking the @$$ of these animals.

I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds “right.”

I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.

I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.

I am tired of seeing Infantry Soldiers conducting what amounts to “SWAT” raids and performing the US Army’s version of “CSI Iraq” and doing things like filling out forms for evidence when they could be better used to hunt and kill the enemy.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.

I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.

Those of us who fight this war want to win it and go home to their families. Prolonging it with attempts to do things like collect “evidence” or present whiz band briefings on a new plasma screen TV is wasteful and ultimately, dulls the edge of our Infantry soldiers who are trained to kill people and break things, not necessarily in that order

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.

It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.

And so far, all of our “games” have been “away games,” and I don’t know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.

So let’s get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.

Here. Here. 'Bout time that truth was stated. I hope the good senators making these idiotic decisions finally understand what our mission is and that their continued fettering with the war effort itself is detrimental to the nation and the soldiers int he field. They are not helping things, and that is the resounding message that should be sent to them.

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

The Offensive Is Working: Cultist Group Destroyed By US and Iraqi Forces

Posted by on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:31:13 AM
 
Captain Ed notes the success we are having in Iraq during this new offensive. And surprisingly enough, the story comes from the LA Times, which is not exactly known for covering "good news" from Iraq:

The dead wore the same footwear, imitation leather dress shoes with Velcro flaps. Their mangled bodies filled the trenches. Bags of ammunition, with the names of fighters written on them, sat by their sides.

A pulpit made of bamboo stood next to a grassy field, a newspaper filled with rambling and enigmatic religious writing strewn nearby.

An unauthorized hourlong walk Tuesday through the bombed compound of a religious cult called Heaven's Army revealed provocative clues about the group, which was decimated Sunday in a 24-hour U.S. and Iraqi offensive that authorities say left 263 alleged members dead and 210 injured. Nearly 400 members were arrested, an Iraqi defense official said.Iraqi officials said the obscure messianic group was poised to launch an attack on Shiite clergy and holy sites in Najaf in the belief that it would hasten the dawn of a new age.

Iraqi officials said they got wind of the plan and attempted to investigate but were attacked by the group's gunmen in a battle that also killed five Iraqi troops and two U.S. soldiers, who died when their helicopter crashed.

The bulk of the damage to the group's base was inflicted by U.S. airstrikes, which turned the tide of a fierce ground battle that pitted the fighters against Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces.

Iraqi officials have released scant new details about the composition and aims of the group. Mohammed Askari, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said foreign Arabs were among those slain and captured. He declined to provide more than basic casualty figures.

But the camp itself, amid lush groves of eucalyptus and palm trees, offered a trove of details about the members of Heaven's Army.They had plenty of food. Each fighter had his own supply of chocolate and biscuits. They were prepared: A 6-foot dirt berm and an equally deep trench surrounded the 50-acre compound.

They were well organized. Living in at least 30 concrete-block buildings, all the fighters had identification badges. The group published its own books and a newspaper. The members apparently were enamored with their leader, a charismatic man in his 30s named Dhyaa Abdul-Zahra, whose likeness adorned the newspaper.

Not nearly as dangerous as al-Sadr's militia, the loosely-knit "Heaven's Army" were a group of Arabic nuts who bought into the same idea that Mhamoud Ahamdinejad did; that being an attempt to usher in the 12th Imam. And they were preparing to go after Shi'ites and Sunnis--neither of which the group supported--which would have just incited more violence in a country where we are trying our hardest to curb such a thing.

In all fairness, I have to agree with Captain Ed. This group was more like the Branch Davidians, or other fanatical religious cults out there, only better armed and organized. Had these people been able to pull off a successful strike in Najaf, hundreds might have died. And the LA Times gives readers a run down of the sort of Hell we would have dealt with had we not had help from the airstrikes:

And they were well armed and ready for battle. High-powered machine guns, antiaircraft rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and late-model pickup trucks with mounted guns were scattered around the eight farms that make up the compound, about 10 miles north of Najaf.

A wooden platform on a tree served as a sniper's perch. The would-be shooter lay dead on the ground by the tree trunk.

"Without the bombings of the Americans we would have remained for two weeks unable to penetrate," said an Iraqi soldier, who led a Times correspondent and other Iraqi journalists through the compound.

This is most assuredly a victory in this offensive. And I repeat that I am surprised t6he LA Times recognizes it. But hey, every dog has their day, right?

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

Roll Call Notices The Pledge: The Fallout For the GOP, If They Continue Down This Path, Could Be Grave

Posted by on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:19:20 PM
 Yeah, we're still dealing with The NRSC Pledge here at The Gauntlet, and with good reason. There are now over 30,000 signers to the petition, and Roll Call has taken note of the movement while the MSM still turns a blind eye to a large amount of very irate Republicans. From the Roll Call piece, cited by Hugh's site:

The Web site — www.thenrscpledge.com — boasted around 30,000 signers as of Monday, and that’s a cause of concern for Senate Republicans.

NRSC spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher said Monday the committee is taking Hewitt’s effort seriously, indicating the NRSC is concerned about the practical implications it might have on fundraising and grass-roots support for GOP Senate candidates.

“Of course we worry about the effect something like this has on online fundraising,” Fisher said. “As we explore different methods of fundraising, we have to be sure that we can effectively take advantage of every available avenue. And with a response like this blog has received, we take notice.”

And they'd better take notice. P*ssed oiff doesn't begin to equate the anger that the GOP base is emanating right now as Republican after Republican in Congress seems nutter enough to jockey for position on resolutions that don't help the troops, but rather emphasize defeat in the Iraq phase of this war. I hope we, the signers of this petition, have caught Congress's attention. And both Marice and are are pushing the envelope: This goes beyond the NRSC, and goes directly to the RNC and GOPAC as well. We won't waver on ANY of the GOP fundraising organizations. ALL Republicans benefit from these groups, and a message has to be sent--in spades--that such ideas aren't welcome in the party. This sort of behavior threatens the war effort, and threatens national security. There is a point where these people have to put partisan, personal politics to the side and do what's right for the nation. These resolutions don't translate to that. But I'd like to bring up a point that Hugh highlights in his post about the Roll Call notice:

What, exactly, do the last chancers mean? That if this Iraqi government --less than a year old-- can't somehow defeat the Iranian funded and organized fifth column (which Israel could not do this past summer) or eradicate al Qaeda (which the Karzai government, the U.S. and NATO haven't been able to do in Afghanistan after five years), that the U.S. will pull up stakes? That the eight million purple fingered Iraqis will be left to their own devices because a half dozen Congressmen and a couple of senators fear losing their seats? ...

... Congress, it appears, is always willing to ride to the rescue when no rescue is being mounted.

But here in Iraq in the heart of the most unstable region in the world, with an expansionist and reckless Iran --led by fanatics and closing in on nukes-- on the border and funding the killing, Congressmen from both parties are declaring "last chances" for Iraq and packing the wagons. How bitter Iraqis must be when they hear six figure a year men and women declare "last chances" as they hear the sound of car bombs or bullets, and especially when they read about the dilemmas facing Republicans who had "close calls" in November or who face "tough fights" in '08.

"Benchmarks" are either deadlines after which abandonment looms or poses struck for political cover. Both are the opposite of what is needed, which is resolve and the communication to the troops, our Iraqi allies, and the enemy that we intend to help the Iraqis get the stability and freedom they deserve.

The Republican Party isn't going to split over victory, but it is going to get a lesson in who deserves to lead it. And if that lesson is accompanied by diminution or even a collapse in small and medium donors disgusted with round-heeled Republicans, that will be a warning, not an end result, of an even greater abandonment of the effort to rebuild a majority in the Congress.

What we fear, and it's well-founded, is a schism occurring in the party where the moderates and conservatives butt heads in the worst sense. As Hugh has rightly pointed out, and we agree, the Republican Party tent is a big one, and is able to encompass a number of moderates and conservatives alike. When such issues like this come up though, it's up to the conservative leaders to step forward, condemn their colleagues for such stances, and rein them in. The problem we're seeing is that no one seems to have the fortitude to do so. So, what is the base to do?

The base reacts to what it perceives as an inside threat. Not a threa to the party, per se, but a real threat to the nation. These resolutions--The Biden resolution, the Warner resolution, the McCain benchmark resolution, and the Boehner benchmark resolution--all threaten the war effort. They attempt to end the additional deployments of troops, and then set up dates for things to occur in Iraq with an added threat of "or else." Or else what? We'll pull up roots, and come home? That's no solution to the problems. Retreating only emboldens the enemy. Furthermore, do any of these fools in Congress believe that such a move won't remake Iraq into an enemy of the United States?

That's a legitimate point. It was made by Kurdish leaders back after the ISG report was released where those leaders reminded the US that they have stood beside them, through thick and thin since our second invasion, and when we left in 1991 they felt as if we had abandoned them. This time around, they were still there because they knew America was there to rescue them from the clutches of a vile, barbaric, terrorist-enabling dictator. The Iraqi people rejoiced when we invaded, and still support our presence there. To abandon the twenty-eight million-plus people of Iraq to those that seek their downfall is to make an enemy of them. They'll NEVER trust this nation again. Do we really want that? I think not, and Congress had better get that through their petty, partisan skulls.

We can understand the frustration of Congress with the war. Things aren't going as planned. But IT'S A WAR. Wars never go according to plan. We're doing the best we can, and we've called on Iraq to do more. They are. And we can, but we need these idiots in Congress to let the president do his job. To do so, he needs their support. They need to let the military run the war, from the field, and on the ground. To do that, they need the additional troops. They don't need their commander-in-chief's hands tied. They don't need Congressional micro-management. Congress needs to keep it's nose out of the war, and focus on the issues necessary for the homefront. So, we urge voters--be they Republican or Democrat--to contact their elected representatives in BOTH Houses and tell them to end these antics. Encourage those opposed to the resolutions to mount filibusters to end their passage.

Should the Republicans continue with their wayward ideas, they're going to tear the party in two. Conservatives won't support moderates, and vice-versa. For some, that may be a solid idea. For the sensible ones, like Marcie and I, that's a proposition from Hell. WE need the majority back to make sure the extreme fronge moonbats don't get any more power than what they already have. This started with one moonbat (in Biden) deciding that he knew better than the president and the generals. Now, we've got a whole host of them in the GOP thinking the same thing, and believing this is exactly what America wants.

That's not even close to the truth, and their games are going to cost them. Not only will it cost them camapign contributions, but it's going to cost them their seats as support for them dries up in their states over these nutter ideas. Send them the message already, and tell them to end this garbage. It's not helping the troops in the short term, and it'll be a cold day in Hell when it benefits the nation in the long run.

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

John Boehner Joins The Defeatist Chorus Line

Posted by on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:36:20 AM
 As if we thought the idiocy could not get any worse in Congress regarding what Dean Barnett calls the "Meaningless Resolution Buffet," it tends to get worse. Both he and Hugh point out that John Boehner has now joined the Wobblies in the Congressional GOP. Yesterday afternoon, Hugh interviewed Minority Leader Boehner, and this is the key exchange between the two:


HH: What do you think the enemy thinks about your benchmark proposal?

JB: Uh, I think it helps the administration. I think it puts pressure on the Iraqi government to step up. If you look at the President’s proposal, it’s dependent upon the relatively new Iraqi government to step up and do what it has to do. And I think that having these benchmarks out there send a very clear signal to the Iraqis that we’re going to expect them to do what they have to do.

HH: But the question was what do you think the enemy thinks about your resolution?

JB: We’re measuring progress. We’re measuring success.

HH: But do you think the enemy thinks it’s a bad thing that you’ve put this into place?

JB: I don’t think so.

Three times it is asked, and only on the third time does Hugh get an answer. Dean sums up the exchange succintly:

SO WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF THIS? Two possible scenarios – one is that Boehner knows damn well what this will do for the enemy and yet he still wants to pass the resolution for political reasons. The other scenario, and frankly I find this one both more likely and more chilling, is that Boehner has never even considered, not for one second, the effect his resolution will have on the enemy. Hugh’s question caught him off guard and without an answer because to him, it seemed like a non-sequitur.

And that ladies and gentlemen is the damnable thing about these resolutions. Personally, I do not think that any of these poor saps in Congress have contemplated how this will translate to or enemy. Either that, or they are blindingly moving forward on what they believe will save their political skins. And if that IS the case with them, then they are for more obtuse than we initially believed.

I cannot believe that the GOP has lost its way this badly to take up the cause of defeatism. We supported John Boehner as Minority Leader for the same reasons so many others had reasoned. He could not be blamed for the GOP's woes in the House as his stint as Majority Leader was severely truncated. But now it is painfully obvious that Rep. Boehner is woefully inadequate in this job. To issue a resolution on the war, espcially one calling for benchmarks--a proposal similar to that of John McCain's in the Senate--is pure insanity.

NONE, I repeat and emphasize NONE of these resolutions are going to help the war effort. They are not assisting our troops in their endeavors, and worse still, they are curtailing the administrations efforts to finish our job there, and come home. But this does not seem to resonate throughout Congress. And our list of targeted Congressmen and women continues to grow now with Rep. Boehner added to the list.

So, we are extending the NRSC/RNC/GOPAC Pledge to include any House GOP that sign onto or present resolutions that hinder the war's progression. Yes, we are aware that House members are not included amongst the NRSC (as it solely pertains to the Senate), but they will receive funds from the other two. Not one dime will go to ANY of these fundraising organizations so long as they continue to support these Congressional GOP members in their reelection bids. The money sent to the RNC will got to House and Senate members; Sen. Ensign refuses to ostracize any senator supporting the resolutions from receiving funds. So, this falls to the people to deal with, and we are dealing with it.

When official lines of communication seem clogged, or inattentive to it's base, then the base responds, and The Pledge continues its growth; now up to 30,414 signers. If you have not signed up, go and do so now. Join the blogroll there. Make the calls, unleash the e-mails, and dispatch the faxes:

Senator Alexander’s phone: (202) 224-4944. His e-mail is here.
Senator Brownback’s phone: (202) 224-6521. His e-mail is here.
Senator Coleman’s phone: (202) 224-5641. His e-mail is here.
Senator Collins’ phone: (202) 224-2523. Her e-mail is here.
Senator McCain's phone: (202) 224-2235. His campaign e-mail is here.
Senator Smith’s phone: (202) 224-3753. His e-mail is here.
Senator Voinovich's phone: (202) 224-3353. His e-mail is here.
Senator Warner's phone: (202) 224-2023. His e-mail is here.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s phone is (202) 224-2541. His e-mail is here.
Minority Whip Trent Lott’s phone is (202) 224-6253. His e-mail is here.
Senator Jon Kyl’s phone is (202) 224-4521. His e-mail is here.
Senator John Ensign’s phone is (202) 224-6244. His e-mail is here.

And do not forget Rep. Boehner. His phone number is: (202) 225-6205. His fax: (202) 225-0704.

Drop them a line and give them all a piece of your mind.

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

The Wobbly Warner Quintet, And Their Murky Futures.

Posted by on Monday, January 29, 2007 3:59:11 PM
 Dean Barnett is still over at Hugh's site and he has just put up what he says "This could possibly be my last post on The Pledge." That would be a shame because I did enjoy reading his thoughts on the Pledge. But he brings up an important point today that I doubt few have realized. WE knew this because we already have the 2008 lists drawn up:

...As of this afternoon, the Warner Resolution has five supporters. They are, John Warner, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Chuck Hagel. ...

Now, why is this fact pertinent? Because it goes to the heart of why Dean called them "11/7 Republicans." John Warner and Company saw the election results, and bought the dead-tree industry's talking points hook, line, and sinker. They believed that the oust from power was a result of the war strategy in Iraq. Of course in buying that theme, they ignored their own feckless attitude which raised the ire of the electorate. Failing to fulfill their campaign promises of 2004, over-spending taxpayer money, being divided over issues like the Dubai Ports deal and Harriet Miers, etc., etc. ad naseum. In short, the war was just a small piece of the puzzle. But these poor saps took it as the central issue, and have decided that if you cannot beat them, you should join them.

Which is why they are taking this stand. ALL FIVE are up for reelection in 2008. And as they believe the wear cost them their power in 2006, a stand against the president and the war effort may help them in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth. While America is indeed tired of the war (as we always seem to be; an observation made by Strategy Page yesterday), we are not willing to call cut-and-run, and come home with the mission unfulfilled. We learned a valuable lesson from Vietnam, and it is obviously one the fools in Congress have yet to remember.

Vietnam was the first in many retreats this nation made, and it sent a message to the world that if you push hard enough, we will falter, and fall back. It emboldened Islamic terror in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Jimmy Carter refusal to act decisively against Iran, President Reagan's forced withdrawal from Beirut, President Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia, etc., sent a signal to our enemies that we could be bullied out of a mission. President Bush stood up after 9/11, drew a line in the sand, and said "no more running." Since then we have been on the offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq, and won both wars. Now, we fight to maintain and secure the peace.

The Democrats, along with the Wobbly Warner Quintet, believe they can not only stop the surge (a surge, by the way, that they all demanded over the last year or so, and now are conveniently against), but possibly a full withdrawl/redeployment from Iraq. Talk about an emboldened enemy. We are seeing Iraq played out right now in Congress, minus the guns, the bombs, and the never-ending dead-tree p*mped death toll. The Wobbly Warner Quintet is playing the role of the Democrats, and the Democrats are playing the role of the terrorists; encouraged by defeatist rhetoric. (All right, maybe not, but it is not an inaccurate analogy.)

The Wobbly Warner Quintet is on shaky ground right now. 29,757 people have signed onto The Pledge, Senator Mitch McConnell has stated he will not support the Warner Amendment, or any others that contradict the president, and I expect that a filibuster may be imminent to stop them all. For sure, Senator McConnell has stated the Democrats and the Warner Quintet do not have the 60 votes for cloture. And just as quickly as this resolution could go down in flames, if these five do not see what is happening, and change their ways, their reelection bids could go down precisely the same way.

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

Jan Crawford Greenburg Talks About Justice Thomas

Posted by on Monday, January 29, 2007 3:24:57 PM
 Our readers know that Thomas and I love to watch the Supreme Court and the stories that surround it. While Thomas has the amateur Con Law knowledge, I will be moving towards a more formal side of it when I enroll in law school this fall. (And no, I still have not fully decided which school yet, but I am down to two options.)

I noted this piece from Jan Crawford Greenburg, author of Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story for Control of the United States Supreme Court which is the book Thomas walked out the door with this morning. He purchased it yesterday. Ms. Greenburg's column is on Justice Clarence Thomas, and for court watchers like us, it is a must read. Here are a few key excerpts from the piece:

...Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around....

...Justice Thomas's first year on the job brought to life the adage that a new justice makes a new court. His entry didn't merely change the vote of the liberal justice he replaced. It turned the chessboard around entirely, rearranging ideological alliances. Justice Thomas acted as a catalyst in different ways, shoring up conservative positions in some cases and spurring others--the moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in particular--to realign themselves into new voting blocs.

Consider a criminal case argued during Justice Thomas's first week. It concerned a thief's effort to get out of a Louisiana mental institution and the state's desire to keep him there. Eight justices voted to side with the thief. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that although it "may make eminent sense as a policy matter" to let the criminal out of the mental institution, nothing in the Constitution required "the states to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges."

After he sent his dissenting opinion to the other justices, as is custom, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy changed their votes. The case ended up 5-4.

Justice Thomas's dissents persuaded Justice Scalia to change his mind several times that year. Even in Hudson v. McMillan, the case that prompted the New York Times to infamously label Justice Thomas the "youngest, cruelest justice," he was again, initially, the lone dissenter. Justice Scalia changed his vote after he read Justice Thomas's dissent, which said a prison inmate beaten by guards had several options for redress--but not under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." ...

...From the beginning, Justice Thomas was an independent voice. His brutal confirmation hearings only enforced his autonomy, making him impervious to criticism from the media and liberal law professors. He'd told his story, and no one listened. From then on, he did not care what they said about him.

Clarence Thomas, for example, is the only justice who rarely asks questions at oral arguments. One reason is that he thinks his colleagues talk too much from the bench, and he prefers to let the lawyers explain their case with fewer interruptions. But his silence is sometimes interpreted as a lack of interest, and friends have begged him to ask a few questions to dispel those suggestions. He refuses to do it. "They have no credibility," he says of critics. "I am free to live up to my oath."

It is true that Thomas and I find ourselves more in line with Justice Scalia, but in terms of originalist thinking, we look to Justices Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts more than anyone else on the court. For us, and for them, the Constitution is as it is written, and is not subject ot the whims of unelected jurists. Policy preferences are best left to the voters and the states. Indeed, Justices Scalia and Thomas have nailed that point home in opinion after opinion regarding issues that this nation has faced in the last fifteen to twenty years.

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