April 19-21, 2007
Apr 19 04:07 President Won't Agree to Dems' Surrender Plans Apr 19 16:42 Veto Fodder Apr 19 17:19 Showing Their True Colors Apr 19 20:59 Reid: War Can't Be Won, Part II Apr 20 01:45 DFL House Approves Tuition Breaks For Illegal Aliens Apr 20 03:50 We're Starving Higher Education Revisited Apr 20 04:12 Surrender To Who??? Apr 21 04:16 Cherrypicking the ISG Report Apr 21 11:25 Levin Gives Weak Defense of Reid
Prior Years: 2006
President Won't Agree to Dems' Surrender Plans
It's time that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi figured out that they're playing a losing hand on the Iraq funding bill. With Sens. Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama saying that they won't cut off funding for troops in the field, Reid must know that he's lost this hand to President Bush and Gen. Petraeus. With a slew of southern and Midwestern freshmen moderates' careers on the line, Nancy Pelosi must know that she can't push the bill that the MoveCongress/Daily Kos people want.
After Wednesday's meeting, the sides are still far apart, with Harry Reid still pretending that he's holding the best cards:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said after the "polite" meeting that Democrats had spoken their minds to the president -- "and I think he needs to hear more of conversations from people like us who don't always tell him what he wants to hear."It's true that President Bush hasn't chosen his advisers well. The only way he could've gotten worse advice is if he'd taken the Democrats' advice. When Jack Murtha says that we should redeploy our rapid response forces to Okinawa, it's impossible to take them seriously. When John Murtha says that AQI will disappear the minute we leave, it's impossible to take them seriously.
It looks like the White House isn't just turning the other cheek:
"There are fundamental disagreements on efforts to legislate surrender dates," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said after the meeting.President Bush should resist the Democrats' attempts to legislate surrender. He should address the nation, first addressing the nation on the history of al Qa'ida's war with us. I'd especially focus on bin Laden's statements that withdrawing from Somalia told him that America was a paper tiger.
"It has been our plan to pass legislation next week so the president can take it up at his earliest time, and hopefully give some hope to the American people that we understand that they want us to work together to wind down this war, bring our troops home safely," Mrs. Pelosi, of California, said.It's time that Ms. Pelosi got an earful from the American people. It's time that they told her that America isn't a collection of pacifists and defeatists. Only a portion of the country is like her. They're the Nutroots wing of her party. It's time that Ms. Pelosi learned that she's playing a losing hand. If she pushes the current legislation, her southern moderates will either vote against her or they'll be electoral toast in 2008.
Asked whether the meeting had changed any views, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner had just one word: "No. The real issue...is whether we're going to agree to a surrender date, and that's not going to happen," Mr. Boehner, of Ohio, said.The Republicans have substantially firmed up their ranks since the days of nonbinding resolutions. The Victory Caucus has alot to do with that. Rest assured that NZ Bear's building a victory coalition turned heads inside the halls of power.
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:07 AM
Comment 1 by Michael Ejercito at 19-Apr-07 10:20 AM
How can our military secure Iraq if they can not even secure the home front?
Six years before 9/11, Stephanie Kuhen was murdered in an indiscriminate act of terror in Los Angeles. Our military was completely ineffective in their response. More attacks like this continued, including the murder of Joseph Swift .
Our military failed here at home. Any of you expect a different result in Iraq?
Veto Fodder
I've really grown fond of the WC Trib's reporting on the Minnesota legislative session. Here's the link to another must read WC Trib article on the budget battle. I especially like this section:
"This bill provides Minnesotans with a comprehensive set of environmental and energy strategies that will deliver a healthier quality of life and well-being to our citizens," said DFL Rep. Jean Wagenius of Minneapolis, chairwoman of the Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee.Most of the legislation that the DFL is passing will be vetoed. Most of the bills they've passed have more to do with paying their special interest allies back than it has to do with good policymaking.
"This bill is destined for a veto," said Rep. Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon.
Sviggum complained that the measure does not adequately fund timber, ethanol, mining, feedlot pollution and other water quality projects.
As with most bills going through the House this week, nearly every amendment Republicans offered fell to the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party majority. Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, failed 79-54 in an attempt to lift a ban on new Minnesota nuclear power plants. However, Chairman Bill Hilty, DFL-Finlayson, of the House Energy Policy and Finance Division opposed Peppin, promising future hearings on the issue.Who cares if Hilty promised future hearings on Rep. Peppin's legislation? If there's merit to it, why shouldn't it be taken up now? As for GOP amendments falling "to the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party majority", I just say "What's new"? That's been the pattern all session. The DFL thinks that their election victory gave them carte blanch to do whatever they wished. They're sadly mistaken about that.
The DFL ran as fiscal moderates. If anything, that was their mandate. They've governed as radicals. They've broken their campaign promises on taxation. Most importantly, they've done this to increase spending while ignoring the impact that their tax increases will have on Minnesota's economy.
If these tax increases were signed into law, Minnesota's economy would tank within 6 months. Unemployment would jump, economic growth would halt & the state would be facing another budget deficit.
It's the activists' jobs to explain to people the impact of these policies. It's also the activists' job to explain our pro growth, family friendly policies so people are voting for us, not just against the DFL. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, we've become the party of solutions. It's time we started selling our solutions to level-headed individuals of all backgrounds.
If we don't accept & meet this challenge, we'll deserve the dreary future that's headed our direction.
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:42 PM
No comments.
Showing Their True Colors
Harry Reid is finally showing us the Democrats' true colors. Sen. Reid has now said that Iraq is lost. In saying this, Reid has now positioned the Democrats as the 'Party of Defeat'.
"I believe...that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists. Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.There's no other way to say this: Reid is an idiot. He's said that we're in the middle of a civil war, something that I don't believe. Just for the sake of argument, though, let's accept that premise. If there is a civil war, how can the war be won economically? No businessman will commit capitol to building businesses in a war-torn city. I'd further ask Sen. Reid how anything can be accomplished politically if Shia & Sunnis are at each other's throats?
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."
This is best categorized as mindless drivel from Sen. Reid. The scariest part of this is that Reid's views are the dominant position within the Democratic Party. The bottom line in all this is that Democrats would return us to the defeatist foreign policy days of Sen. McGovern and Jimmy Carter. We can't afford that. Anyone who knows history will tell you that Carter's foreign policy spawned the global jihadist movement.
It's time that we start working towards getting idiots like Sen. Reid fired the next time they're up for re-election. We can't afford having 'leaders' like Reid in charge of anything.
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:22 PM
No comments.
Reid: War Can't Be Won, Part II
It didn't take long for Reid to deny he said what he said. Reid's in full denial mode. He's backpedaling with this statement:
"As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course -- and we must change course." The war funding bill should contain a timeline to "reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our security," he said.Here's what he originally said:
"The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Reid said in a news conference.Reid stepped in it with his initial statement. Now he's forced to tell people that they didn't hear what they heard. He's trying to tell people that he isn't contradicting himself with his contradictory statements. That won't fly. There's no way that he can put that genie back in the proverbial bottle. After making such contradictory statements, he can kiss his credibility goodbye.
This is what happens when Democrats tell the truth. They've hidden their agenda for so long that they can't keep their lies straight. It's also a great picture of what happens when you put a guy in charge who isn't ready for primetime. If they play it right, the RNC shouldn't have any difficulty turning Harry Reid into albatross around the DSCC's neck.
The White House pounced on the opportunity to criticize Reid:
"It's disturbing that some on Capitol Hill believe they know more than the commanders on the ground, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "His comment is in conflict with the senior military advisors who are implementing the Baghdad security plan, working to calm the violence and to protect the innocent men, women and children of Iraq who are being victimized by a vicious enemy."Here's how Mitch McConnell blasted Reid:
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader in the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.It's time that the American people told Sen. Reid that, though they aren't happy with the war, they won't tolerate Reid's abandoning the troops while they're in harm's way. It's time that we told the pacifist Democrats that they'd better start supporting our troops in words AND deeds.
Most importantly, it's time that we told Harry Reid that his seditious and harmful actions are utterly unacceptable.
Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:01 PM
No comments.
DFL House Approves Tuition Breaks For Illegal Aliens
The House DFL passed legislation giving tuition breaks to illegal aliens. If you think I'm kidding, check it out:
Some lawmakers, however, questioned a provision allowing illegal immigrants who've completed three years of high school and graduated to pay resident tuition at Minnesota colleges.Gov. Pawlenty has said that he'll veto any legislation that includes the Dream Act:
Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, urged lawmakers to remove the so-called Dream Act. Thirteen Minnesota colleges already have the policy. "That means that this provision is not required," Severson said.
Pawlenty, a Republican, said he won't agree to higher education legislation containing the Dream Act. "If they purposefully want to have the bill vetoed, that's their choice," Pawlenty said during a Thursday press briefing.This is a blatant attempt to force a confrontation with Gov. Pawlenty. This is a fight that the DFL will lose. I'm basing my opinion on this statement:
Seifert said more House Republicans would have supported the bill if the Dream Act wasn't included.The DFL could've passed a bill with genuine bipartisan support if they wouldn't have insisted on giving tuition breaks to illegal aliens. I hope that the MNGOP is paying attention to this. I hope that they publicize this legislation to the max.
Personally, I'd tell every parent that's putting children through college about this legislation. I'd tell them that the state subsidizes tuitions on illegal aliens, which takes money away from Minnesota residents. Then I'd remind them that that money could've been used to further subsidize tuition costs for residents.
I urge my Minnesota readers to contact their representative & ask them why they haven't eliminated tuition subsidies to illegal aliens. I'd also ask them why they haven't used that money to stabilize tuition costs for Minnesota residents.
I'm betting that they won't have an answer for those questions.
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 1:45 AM
No comments.
We're Starving Higher Education Revisited
Tom Rukavina is on the record as saying that we aren't starving higher education any more. I wonder if anyone's told Sandy Pappas yet. Here's what a happy Tom Rukavina said after the education bill passed:
"The days of double-digit tuition increases are over," said DFL Rep. Tom Rukavina, the chairman of a House higher education panel.Of course, the bill won't get past Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen:
The illegal immigrant tuition proposal, called the Dream Act by supporters, brought out deeply felt arguments on both sides. The measure would apply to students who spent at least three years in a Minnesota high school and intend to seek permanent resident status in the United States. It's also part of a Senate college spending bill, but Pawlenty is against it.Here's the money quote in this article:
Backers spoke of the United States' immigrant heritage and the contributions of newcomers. Opponents said the measure would weaken respect for the law. An attempt to strip it from the college bill failed 61-71 as immigrant students watched from the gallery.
"We make it almost impossible for these young, bright people to pursue their dreams," said Rep. Carlos Mariani, DFL-St. Paul.Rep. Mariani, it isn't our job to subsidize illegal aliens' college tuitions. In fact, I'm curious why he'd think people who are here illegally should get official government benefits, especially when DFL leaders say that education dollars are stretched thin. It seems to me that we should deny benefits to lawbreakers, especially when it's taking money away from Minnesota residents that can't afford a college education.
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 3:50 AM
No comments.
Surrender To Who???
According to this article, that's the question that Ted Kennedy is asking. Here's Kennedy's statement in context:
On the Senate side of Capitol Hill, Sen. Ted Kennedy, (D-MA), said he didn't want to "dignify with a response" the GOP's new characterization of the Democratic position on troop withdrawal as "surrender." "Surrender to who? Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. This is an administration that has never understood the nature of the threat or the way to respond to it," Kennedy said.Sen. Kennedy's age and arrogance are showing. If the MNF forces leave, it will have the effect of surrendering to AQI, Iran and the Iraqi insurgents. He'd know that if he didn't hate President Bush so much. That BDS colors his judgments and causes him to make idiotic statements like that.
"It's a place where the Iraqis have decided to take control of their future. The Sheiks have played a key role in making good things happen out here, along with the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army and with our help. I received a briefing not just about military operations, but about construction projects, rule of law initiatives and a variety of local political developments that are encouraging," Gates said.Those stories won't get told in any major newspapers. Those stories certainly won't get told on NBC or CBS nightly news. What's worse is that those stories will be ridiculed by Congressional Democrats, who view this war purely in political terms.
Posted Friday, April 20, 2007 4:14 AM
No comments.
Cherrypicking the ISG Report
Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar, (D-MN), gave the Democrats' weekly radio address this week. In doing so, Ms. Klobuchar highlighted the parts of the ISG report that she liked while ignoring the parts she didn't like. Here's what I'm referring to:
"This means sending a clear message to the Iraqi government that we are not staying there indefinitely," she said. "This means, as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, that we begin the process of redeploying our troops with the goal of withdrawing combat forces by next year."I don't deny the fact that the ISG report does say that we should begin redeploying troops. Instead, I'm saying that that isn't all it said:
If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.In other words, the ISG report says that accepting defeat would have devastating consequences for Iraq and the region.
Klobuchar said she was part of a group of four senators who met with President Bush at the White House last week. "I told him that now is the time to forge cooperation with our Democrats in Congress," she said.Ms. Klobuchar thinks that cooperation is President Bush caving into the Democrats' defeatist policy. That isn't cooperation. That's a recipe for disaster. I'd love asking Ms. Klobuchar why President Bush should write off the Middle East. I'd further like hearing her response to why she thinks defeat in Iraq is an acceptable outcome. Lastly, I'd love finding out why Ms. Klobuchar thinks that abandoning our allies will help maintain credibility with the world community.
It seems to me that Democrats have painted themselves into a corner in a couple of respects. If they deny our troops the funds they need to win and the Middle East erupts in violence, they'll be blamed for giving al Qa'ida terrorists safe haven, for giving Iran another forward operating base and for destroying our credibility throughout the world.
Worst of all, they'd be blamed for making America less safe and for destroying the troops' morale.
That's simply unacceptable.
Posted Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:17 AM
No comments.
Levin Gives Weak Defense of Reid
President Bush used an appearance at a Grand Rapids school to make the case that the surge troops are making a difference in Baghdad and Ramadi:
"The direction of the fight is beginning to shift," Mr. Bush said in a speech at East Grand Rapids High School in Michigan. "Day by day, block by block, Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in Baghdad."As I said here, don't expect the Democrats to acknowledge the Ramadi developments. They won't acknowledge the truth if it's positive news because they have too much invested on repeatedly declaring Iraq a defeat. This news will get the same treatment.
---------------
To show the reduction of al Qaeda in the city of Ramadi, he showed before and after slides, claiming that cooperation from local sheiks has allowed the United States to almost completely eliminate terrorists and insurgents there over the last two months.
I like the idea that President Bush is using before and after pictures to show progress. Democrats can and do question President Bush's statements with a fair amount of success. It's impossible to refute pictoral evidence that things have changed. This pictoral evidence is a prime candidate for being ignored in the Agenda Media.
Sen. Lindsey Graham took Sen. Reid to task for his defeatist statement:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC), called the comment "a mistake for the ages."In an attempt to defend his leader, Carl Levin's statement just made things worse:
But Sen. Carl Levin, (D-MI), said Mr. Reid's words needed to be examined in a broader context. "I think his larger point is that there's no military solution here; there's only a political solution, and there doesn't appear to be any movement in that direction," Mr. Levin said.It's true that things aren't progressing politically as we'd hoped, with the oil revenue sharing stalled right now. That said, only an idiot would believe that the only way to defeat Iranian-funded militias is with politics. Only a pacifist fool would think that that's the road to peace.
Furthermore, anyone who watched the video of Reid's statement knows that it wasn't meant in the context that Sen. Levin suggests. Sen. Reid was speaking with the voice of the Insane Left when he initially made that statement to the President and when he repeated it at a news conference. The tone clearly indicated that Reid was saying that the war was lost and it's time to pull the troops before more troops died.
For over a year, I've said that Democrats have chosen not to talk about victory. Instead, they've talked about how they don't agree with Jack Murtha's immediate redeployment initiative. Candidate Amy Klobuchar talked about a realistic time-frame for troop withdrawal:
Since April, I have been asking the President to give the nation a clear plan to bring our troops home safely. As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq.Barack Obama followed the same path:
One year after his bland and idea-less speech on Iraq to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (see "Obama Mouths Mush on War," December 1, 2005), Obama returned to mush more of the same to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The U.S. should "begin to move towards a phased redeployment of American troops from Iraqi soil," he told the business-oriented crowd.Republicans criticized Murtha's plan as cut and run. Similarly, they characterized Obama's plan as cut and walk. It doesn't take much skill to find thousands of quotes from Ms. Pelosi, Sen. Reid and their minions talking about the "safe return of our troops" to American soil.
It's against that backdrop that Sen. Levin wants us to believe that the Democrats care about winning in Iraq. The only honest reaction I can have about Sen. Levin is to tell him that I'm not buying what he's peddling.
Posted Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:26 AM
No comments.
