1/30/2007
Baker to Senate: “Give it a chance”
No, not peace. ISG Chairman James Baker asked the Senate to give President Bush’s “surge plan” a chance.
WASHINGTON — James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, on Tuesday endorsed President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, urging the Senate to “give it a chance.”
“The president’s plan ought to be given a chance,” Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Just give it a chance.”
Baker, a former secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, said it was wrong for the Senate to confirm Army Gen. David Petreaus to lead the new Iraq mission at the same time it was moving to pass non-binding resolutions opposing the deployment of at least 21,500 U.S. forces to improve security in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.
I guess this presents a particular problem for Democrats that are trying to fashion the ISG report into a noose to hang around the President’s neck.
1/28/2007
“Hanoi Jane” Fonda joined other leftist Democrat speakers such as John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Maureen Dowd at the anti-war rally in Washington D.C. yesterday. Of course, the obvious question is when will she make an appearance with the insurgents in Iraq at a mortar emplacement?
Welcome to the twenty first century Tokyo Rose. Geesh, I’m getting tired of these people.
1/27/2007
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark
Gerard Baker from the Times if London has penned an absolutely withering assessment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Here’s a taste:
Now, you might say, hold on. Aren’t all politicians veined with an opportunistic streak? Why is she any different? The difference is that Mrs Clinton has raised that opportunism to an animating philosophy, a P. T. Barnum approach to the political marketplace.
All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.
Earlier last week I typed up a response to the response. As it is with much of what I write, this post was outdone recently by someone with a much brighter mind and a much sharper tongue. Hugh has posted a “memo to Webb” from an active duty service member — and boat school grad. Here’s — in my opinion — the key graph:
Webb invokes his opinion and those of others who were against entering into Iraq in 2002 and 2003. They made their arguments but they were not compelling and were predicated on managing the threat by containing Saddam - but all of that changed at the World Trade Center. We were brutally attacked and most of us expected further equally violent and destructive attacks. The president took the best information he had from numerous intelligence agencies, our own and those of our allies, regarding WMD and made the tough choice. Hindsight is perfect but given what the president AND Congress HONESTLY BELIEVED to be the threat, the accusation of recklessness is a cheap shot unworthy of a former warrior…
Go read the whole thing!
1/24/2007
In this new century of low intensity conflicts and street to street fighting the U.S. military is having to come up with ways to fight the enemy other than the traditional bombs and bullets. In that vain, the military put on a demonstration of it’s newest prototype weapon; the heat ray. It’s actually called an active denial system. It’s a non-lethal weapon in the same way that rubber bullets are.
MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. — The military calls its new weapon an “active denial system,” but that’s an understatement. It’s a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire.
Apart from causing that terrifying sensation, the technology is supposed to be harmless — a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.
Military officials say it could save the lives of innocent civilians and service members in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I urge you to go to this site right now and sign the pledge against the Warner and Biden resolutions. The Biden and Warner resolutions provide support and comfort to the terrorists, and they need to be stopped now!
Democrats Declare War On The War
Jim Webb’s rebuttal was an example of the ridiculous depths that the Democratic party has sunk too. Take a look at this quote from the rebuttal:
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military.
Notice that Webb doesn’t provide any support of this statement. In fact, all of the polls and interviews that I’ve seen show that the military does support the mission in Iraq. I think someone should challenge Webb on this. Ask him to show one bit of proof that says that the majority of the military no longer supports the war.
The end of the speech is where things get really interesting though. Take a look at this:
Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
It appears that they’re declaring war on the war and on the President. This strikes me as a foolish, baseless threat. What are they going to do to show him the way? They can’t stop the deployment. The only thing they can do is withhold funding, and withholding funding from troops in harms way will not go over well with the American public.
1/23/2007
Altogether a good speech. The President seemed more at ease tonight than he did earlier this month. I think the biggest surprise for me was the Civilian Reserve Corps. I like the idea a lot. What was the best line of the speech? Speaking about the war in Iraq; “This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united — in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.“.
I hope to have a more detailed review of the speech tomorrow.
Addendum: I also hope to have a coherent response to the Democrat’s rebuttal.
1/21/2007
More of the same from the NYT editorial page
The New York Times editorial page has continued it’s assault on the Bush administration and the war on terror with another editorial criticizing everything from the wiretaps to the treatment of captured Islamofacists at the Guantanamo bay prison camp. To criticize is one thing, however the Times is also misrepresenting the facts and trying to rewrite history in the process.
President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was once deemed so vital to national security that it could not be subjected to judicial review. Last week, the White House said it was doing just that.
In 2005, the White House would not even comment on news reports about the C.I.A.’s prisons because Americans’ safety depended on their being kept secret. In 2006, Mr. Bush held a photo-op to announce that he was keeping them open.
The administration has repeatedly insisted that it was essential to the American way of life for Mr. Bush to be able to imprison foreigners without trial or legal counsel. Now the administration claims it was trying to bring those detainees to trial all along but was stymied by white-shoe lawyers.
In two of the three instances mentioned above the reason that the administration had to change course was because of the New York Times. The Times was the paper that broke both the wiretap story and the prisons story.
By now, this is a familiar pattern: First, Mr. Bush and his aides say his actions are so vital to national security that to even report on them — let alone question them — lends comfort to the terrorists. Then, usually when his decisions face scrutiny from someone other than a compliant Republican Congress, the president seems to compromise.
Actually, as the Times should know, betraying your country and reporting on top secret programs used to stop terrorist attacks does lend aid and comfort to terrorists.
Behind this behavior are at least two dynamics, both of them disturbing.
The first is that the policies Mr. Bush is trying so hard to hide have little, if anything, to do with real national security issues — and everything to do with a campaign, spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney, to break the restraints on presidential power imposed after Vietnam and Watergate. And there is much less than meets the eye to Mr. Bush’s supposed concessions.
Generally, they mask the fact that he either got what he wanted from Congress or found a way to add some other veneer of legitimacy to his lawless behavior. The campaign to expand presidential power goes on, at the expense of American values.
“…have little, if anything, to do with real national security issues…”. What a stunningly stupid thing to say. In what twisted world does a wiretapping program meant to intercept communications between terrorists bent on killing Americans not have anything to do with national security? You would think that a newspaper based just blocks from where over 2,500 people died on 9-11 would know better. Apparently not.
It’s interesting that they make the statement that President Bush’s behavior is lawless, but make no effort to back that statement up. Such is the condition of the Times’ editorial board these days.
Nor is there likely to be an explanation of why the White House could not have sought the court’s approval in the first place. The White House’s claim that the process is too cumbersome doesn’t ring true. The law already allows the government to wiretap first and then ask for a warrant within three days. The real reason is almost certainly that the imperial presidency had no desire to share power even with the most secret part of the judiciary.
Why else would the president have turned down more than one offer from Congress to amend the 1978 wiretapping law after 9/11 to make getting warrants easier and faster than the three-day rule?
Frankly, the process is to cumbersome. What is the administration to do if it comes across communication between Al Qaeda agents planning a terror attack in real time, and three days later the FISA court refuses to grant the warrant? Are they to just stop monitoring those communications? What would the esteemed editorialists at the NYT say after a successful terrorist attack if it was found out that the administration could have stopped the attack if they had just listened to terrorist communications? Furthermore, every presidency in recent history has maintained that they have the authority to wiretap. President Clinton had one of the biggest wiretapping programs in recent history with a secret program code named Echelon.
As far as why the administration would turn down offers from Congress to amend the wiretapping law; maybe it was because they were afraid that Congress would screw it up. Maybe they were afraid that the democrats would hold it up through the use of a filibuster like they have President Bush’s judicial nominees.
For that matter, why did the White House initially refuse to work with senior Republican lawmakers to create a legal court system for the Guantánamo detainees? Instead, Mr. Bush ordered the creation of kangaroo courts, expanding presidential authority at the expense of Congress and the judiciary, and at the expense of justice.
Since when have military tribunals been kangaroo courts? Look, this is absolutely nothing new. The NYT has been trying to defeat the United States in it’s war on terror on both it’s news pages and it’s editorial pages for quite some time now. What’s surprising is that anyone takes them seriously anymore.
1/20/2007
Thanks to our friends in the Philippines, the free world has scored two more victories in the war against Islamofacism. Khaddafy Janjalani — the leader of the Philippine based Abu Sayyaf — is now confirmed dead. He was killed back in September in a clash with Philippine troops. The FBI has run DNA tests on the body and has confirmed the man’s identity. This news comes just days after the death of Abu Sayyaf’s senior commander Abu Sulaiman in another battle with Philippine troops.
1/19/2007
I’ve resisted joining the chorus of voices calling for Democrats (and some Republicans) to stand up for what they believe in by cutting off funding for the Iraq war because I’ve been scared to death that they would actually do it.
You see, I see both sides of the conservative argument. On one hand, I have a cousin serving over there right now and a good friend that may have to go in the near future. I don’t want a cut in funding to effect their safety. On the other hand, for members of Congress opposed to the war to pass non-binding resolutions complaining about how the war is being run while offering no viable alternatives is cowardly. The truly sad part is, that no matter what, the troops get hurt because in the second instance, passing the non-binding resolution sends the troops the message that the country doesn’t support them.
Of course my personal position is that until the anti-war crowd can come up with a viable way to win the battle in Iraq they should just keep their mouths shut. I’ve always been told that if you can’t add anything positive to the discussion then don’t say anything. I think most of us can agree that Congress’ discourse on the war has been anything but positive lately.
1/16/2007
I’d like to welcome Dave Kopel of Kopel’s Corner to the Rocky Mountain Alliance. Dave is the research director and head of the 2nd amendment project at the Independence Institute and is a welcome addition to the alliance.
1/14/2007
Last year millions of Iraqi’s went to the polls for the first time in their lives to vote for the leaders that they wanted. They’ve joined the ranks of millions of Afghani’s that are now free and living under the government of their choice. Yes, both countries are struggling right now. In Afghanistan the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces are still making cowardly attacks on the population and coalition forces. They won’t fight a conventional fight because they know that if they do they will loose badly.
In Iraq things are bad. The situation borders on civil war. There are Sunni and Shiite death squads wondering around committing fratricide — killing their countrymen. Iran and Syria are actively participating in the insurgency. They are providing men and material support in order to not only foment the fratricide, but to kill American troops as well. Our troops are still fighting the good fight though. The Haditha dam electrical project is now at full output capacity. Our troops are rebuilding schools, and hospitals, and are working hard to build the trust of the locals and stop the insurgency.
Lately though, there has been a call from Democrats and some moderate Republicans to bail out of Iraq; to seek a “political solution” whatever that means. At any rate, the key aspect of the plan is to redeploy our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. This plan would mean certain disaster for Iraq as well as the GWOT in general.
In Iraq, we would see Iran and Syria assert their influence even more than they are now. Iran has sought to if not take over Iraq, at least cause enough trouble that they would be the dominant power in the region. Causing trouble in Iraq would certainly assist them in their goal of getting nuclear weapons.
Even more disturbing than the consequences of allowing Iran and Syria to influence the politics in Iraq is the idea of leaving the millions of Iraqi’s who have signed on to the idea of freedom. What will we tell them when we leave and the horrible cycle of violence escalates? What will we tell them when we leave and Iran and Syria assert their influence in the region and hundreds of thousands of men and women are killed because we didn’t stay long enough to get the job done?
Undoubtedly, the men and women who live in Afghanistan will wonder about our commitment to seeing success in their country if we leave Iraq. What will we tell them to assure them that our commitment is strong? Will we even bother? Will we leave them in the lurch as well?
My nephews are five, three, and one. It is likely that one of them or their peers will join the military later in life. What will we tell our children, grandchildren, nephews, or nieces in ten years when they have to go back in and finish the job that we didn’t have the stomach to finish now? What will we tell the children of the men and women who are killed in the next terrorist attack when we find out that the terrorists that carried it out trained in Iraq?
In the days following 9-11 President Bush warned us that this would be a long tough war. It has been. We’ve seen 3,000 brave men and women die in hostilities in Iraq and around 1,100 die in Afghanistan. And, there will undoubtedly be more in the years to come. But, there will be far more US casualties if we fail to stabilize Iraq. There will also be a horrible humanitarian disaster if we fail to stabilize Iraq. We simply must stick this out. We must win the battle in Iraq if we are to have a chance of winning the GWOT. Let’s take a lesson from our fathers and grandfathers, our mothers and grandmothers during WW II; let’s get it together and gut this thing out. Let’s get it together and win this thing for the safety of America.
1/13/2007
Another Pitiful Vietnam Comparison
I guess it shouldn’t surprise me. The media has been trying to compare our action in Iraq to the Vietnam war since the first troops crossed the border from Kuwait into Iraq. But this one did come as a surprise.
Yesterday, Rosa Brooks of the LA Times compared Bush’s surge to Nixon’s “Decent Interval”. In 1971 faced with a war that had been going on for years and a mounting US casualty list Nixon sought peace with honor.
Brooks’ history lesson on the Vietnam war ignores the fact that Nixon found himself in the position of having to pursue the “Decent Interval” option because of the Democrat’s feckless pursuit of victory in Vietnam. Most on the left have forgotten that the Vietnam war was started by JFK and run by LBJ — both Democrats. By the time that Nixon took control of things the damage had already been done.
I’m not sure I understand how redoubling our efforts in Iraq could be compared to telling the North Vietnamese that we wouldn’t oppose a take over so long as it happened after a decent interval though. You see, the whole idea of the surge is to 1) change tactics so that we can hold the ground that we clear and 2) win the war in Iraq.
Bush’s “surge” is the “decent interval” redux. It’s too little, too late, and it relies on the Iraqis to do what we know full well they can’t do. There is no realistic likelihood that it will lead to an enduring solution in Iraq. But it may well provide the decent interval the GOP needs if it is to survive beyond the 2008 elections.
Brooks tries to pass the idea that Bush is putting responsibility on the Iraqi’s that we know full well they can’t handle. I disagree. We aren’t putting that much responsibility on them at all. Our five brigades will be doing the heavy lifting while the IA and Iraqi police will continue to train and take on tasks as they are able.
Furthermore, the idea that President Bush is trying to gain enough breathing room to make it past the 2008 elections is not only breathtakingly cynical, but ignores the fact that Bush is not running for another term.
Brooks and her ilk are just trying to find any reason they can to run down the President’s plan while providing no viable plan of their own. As the President said today in his radio address:
Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.
I would extend this comment to the media and those on the left as well. Give us an alternative that has a better chance of success.
1/12/2007
Barbara Boxer should apologize… today. In Senate hearings yesterday she suggested that Condoleezza Rice didn’t understand the price being paid by our military families because she is a single childless woman.
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
I find it sickening that anyone could suggest that someone that doesn’t have children can’t understand the sacrifices made by our military families. Furthermore, it’s stunning that something like this could come from a Democrat. Aren’t Democrats and feminists supposed to be championing women who achieve such high offices?
In the end though this is little more than the same tired old argument that Democrats have put forward time and time again; “if you haven’t served, aren’t currently serving, or don’t have someone in your family who’s serving you can’t talk about the war”. This argument, of course, is ridiculous. We are all Americans and have every right to comment on and take part in the debate surrounding our nations security. And our nations leaders — whether they have served in the military or not or have children or not — should continue to do everything they can to protect our nation and see to it that we win this war. It’s truly sad that someone who is supposed to be a leader in the Senate would resort to such a personal attack simply because she doesn’t agree with the President’s policies.
1/10/2007
The most impressive thing about the speech? President Bush took blame for the mistakes made thus far in the war in Iraq. I don’t really think that he’s responsible for everything that’s gone wrong, but when you’re at the top the buck can’t be passed any further and President Bush knows that.
There were several other notable items in the speech though. The biggest of them though is the decision by the President and his team to send around 20,000 more troops — approximately six brigades — to Iraq. Five of those brigades will be positioned in or near Baghdad. This increase in troops will provide a ratio of about 1 soldier for every 50 Iraqis in and around Baghdad. The rest of the American troops — about one brigade — will be positioned in Al Anbar province. The Iraqi army will also contribute eighteen brigades to patrolling Baghdad. In the past our troops have cleared territory in Iraq and then have had to move on to other targets. When they’ve moved on, the insurgents have moved back in and resumed their terrorizing of the area. The above mentioned increase in troop strength will be vital in allowing our troops to clear and hold that cleared area. It will also allow the Iraqi army to build a better trained and equipped force faster.
I think that this increase in troops could work if the rules of engagement are relaxed. It does our troops and our cause a great deal of harm when our troops fear legal action against them more than they fear insurgents and IED’s.
One of the other notable pieces of information to come out of the speech is that most of the violence is taking place within thirty miles of Baghdad. To listen to the media and the left you’d think that the whole country was in chaos.
The President also made clear that even if things go exactly as planned in Iraq there will still be more American and Iraqi casualties. The insurgents know that this is the big push, and they will do everything they can to see that it fails. The American public must stay strong though because even those on the left have admitted that failure in Iraq would be disastrous for the US.
1/9/2007
Pelosi Sure Takes A Lot Of Things For Granted
I was reading over the transcripts of the weekend shows this morning and came across Pelosi’s interview on Face the Nation. Her interview is stunning for two reasons. First of all, she just takes for granted that the results of the election were a referendum on the war in Iraq and only a referendum on the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, she states numerous times that an “escalation” of the war in Iraq is contrary to the will of the people.
Well, if the president chooses to escalate the war, which is contrary to the, of course, the will of the American people — they have spoken on the subject.
Now, the election may have been about a lot of things — including Iraq — but I don’t think you can say that the American People flat out want a withdrawl. I think that the majority of American people realize that we have made mistakes in the way that we’ve fought the war. But, I also think that the majority of the American people realize that if we withdrawl from Iraq right now it will cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Iraqi’s that have trusted us to help them put their country back together after the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. In the end though, it will cost us more American lives and treasure as well. It will cost us American lives here at home because the terrorists will follow us back home to America, and they will attack us here instead of fighting us in Iraq, and it will cost us more American lives and treasure when Iraq turns into another Afghanistan pre Operation Enduring Freedom. When that happens, we will have to go back in and finish what we started in 2003.
The second thing that struck me about the interview with Speaker Pelosi is that the Democrats appear to be set to withold funding from our troops unless the President does what they want him to.
If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it.
Schieffer continues to ask Pelosi if the Democrats will cut funding, and she could just never bring herself to answer the question straight. Here’s some more of the exchange:
SCHIEFFER: Now, let me ask you and make sure I understand exactly what you are saying because, up until now, Democrats have not been enthusiastic about using the ultimate weapon, and that is to cut off funding.
PELOSI: We won’t do that.
SCHIEFFER: But you will not vote any more money to expand the size of the force there? Is that what you’re telling me?
PELOSI: I’m saying two things. We will always support the troops who are there.
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
PELOSI: If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States. But that’s not a carte blanche, a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there. And I want to make a distinction here. Democrats do support increasing the size of our Army and our–by 30,000, Marines by 10,000, to make sure we’re able to protect the American people. But that…
SCHIEFFER: Enlarging the services overall.
The Democrats have been threatening the power of the purse since before the election, so it;s no big surprise that Pelosi’s still threatening it — although she never directly says it.
But, hey… the Democrats support the troops… right?
1/8/2007
Tonight we have breaking word that the US has joined the fight with Ethiopian forces in Somalia to route Al Qaeda fighters who have tried to take over the country. A US Airforce A/C-130 has attacked ground targets in Somalia leaving an unknown number of casualties on the ground.
The A/C-130 carries one 25mm Gatling gun, one 40mm Bofors, and one 105mm howitzer. The A/C-130 also carries an extensive defensive countermeasures suite. For those of you who think that the A/C-130 is just an indiscriminate killing machine; it’s not. In fact, it’s commonly used for close air support in defense of friendly troops in contact. The A/C-130 can put fire in a very defined area. From the sounds of it, they typically only hit what they want to hit. However, for those in the sights of “Spooky’s” guns, it’s a quick and explosive death.
Many of the AQ terrorists that are hanging out in Somalia now are suspected of being directly involved in the 1998 attacks on our East African Embassies. The U.S.S. Eisenhower Aircraft carrier is also in the region, and there’s speculation that they could be called on as well. Go get ‘em guys!
1/5/2007
Democrats To Bush: Surrender In Iraq Is The Only Path To Success
Madam speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the President today calling for surrender in Iraq. Here’s the text of the letter in full.
Dear Mr. President:
The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don’t believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.â€
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement . . In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Only in liberal land could surrender against our number one enemy — the terrorists — be seen as a success. The problem is that if we leave Iraq right now the terrorists will take over the country, the Iraqi’s that our troops have worked so hard to build trust with will face the insurmountable task of fighting them on their own and when they fail — and they will because they’re not ready to defend themselves alone yet — we will have to go back in and do it right. However, after we leave them on their own we will face the insurmountable task of trying to get the Iraqi’s to trust us again, and why should they after we left them in the lurch? Long story short… we’ll pay in spades for turning our backs on the Iraqi’s.
Hat Tip: Stop The ACLU
Barney Frank accused the Bush administration of ethnic cleansing by innaction in New Orleans. The audio is a little rough, but the words are definitely there. Here’s the video:
“And, what I believe is, at this point you’re not talking about [inaudible], but what you’re talking about is, I think, a [inaudible], what you’re talking about is when you simply, in a calculated way, refuse to do anything for well over a year … [inaudible] … and [stuttering] I, I, the policy I think here is ethnic cleansing by inaction.
“It’s not ethnic cleansing in the sense that they’re killing people or [driving] people out, but what we need to recognize here is that, they’re in this happy position for them, where the federal government does nothing, as they become richer and richer, because well not only black people needed housing assistance, but they were [predominantly poor, who did it], to simply not do anything to alleviate this housing crisis which … was being exacerbated by Katrina … [inaudible] they, they, they let the hurricane do the ethnic cleansing, because then they’re, all they’re doing is not resisting it, that’s why I call ethnic cleansing by inaction, and I know that there are people who were very happy that, as a result, … [inaudible] … [so that] Louisiana would become a more widely Republican [city] … [inaudible] … because if you lose 100,000 black voters … then you have to take a state that was predominately Republican and made it [inaudible].â€
Talk about the height of irresponsibility. What’s even worse is that according to Bryan at Hot Air, Frank and his office stand by his remarks.
Bill Ardolino, who writes at INDC Journal has filed his first dispatch for the Examiner. In it he talks about two Navy Corpmen who are doing their best to gain the trust of the Iraqi people while treating wounds that are far worse than most seen here in the states.
Within five minutes of arriving at the Fallujah-Iraqi Police Station headquarters, I was welcomed by the sound of shouts and hurried footsteps. An Iraqi policeman had been shot at the northwest perimeter of the station — a sniper had found his mark.
A crowd of Iraqis carried the groaning victim up the station’s main staircase and placed him on a litter hurriedly set down on the floor of the second-story hallway. A crowd of Iraqi Police and Marines coalesced, only to be shooed away by two Navy corpsmen rapidly assessing the gaping exit wound in the man’s stomach.
“Is he going to live?†I asked a Marine standing by on the fringes of the press.
“Dunno, his guts are hanging out.â€
The two corpsmen ripped his blouse open and pulled up a white undershirt. Then they rolled the man on his side, gauging the bullet’s path.
“It’s in his vest,†said a Marine, holding it up.
A flat, nickel-sized piece of lead was embedded in the inside of the kevlar, making the wound a “through-in-through.â€
Corpsman HN Jerad “Doc J†Jurgensmier bandaged the exit wound with an abdominal pressure dressing. HM3 Joshua “Scuba Steve†Watson located the pinhole-sized entrance wound in the man’s lower back — an unlucky inch below the body armor’s ceramic protection — and put gauze over it. He then wet the abdominal bandages to keep the exposed organs moist, tied back his legs with two green cravats and threw a bag of charcoal under them for elevation.
With the wound dressed and the patient stabilized, the Iraqi Police carried their wounded comrade down to an Iraqi Police patrol truck (ambulances are juicy targets for insurgents) and transport to Camp Fallujah Surgical. It’s likely that the Iraqi policeman will live.
Bill isn’t staying in the green zone like most of his MSM counterparts. He goes wherever his Marine embed unit goes. I’ll be looking forward to hearing more from him in the coming weeks. In addition to Bill, Michelle Malkin will be winging her way to Iraq in the near future to try to get to the bottom of the Jamil Hussein story. My guess is that she won’t be staying in the green zone all of the time either.
1/2/2007
Anti-Corporate Grievance Mongers Attack Starbucks
Oxfamamerica, the latest “cure global poverty by robbing corporations blind” group has decided to attack Starbucks Coffee. Here’s Starbucks response to their attacks:
Well, for once the doctors were right; it wasn’t as severe as some of my hospitalizations have been in the past. I am once again home and recovering. It will be awhile before normal blogging resumes.