December 21-23, 2007
Dec 21 01:14 Put Murtha In the Hot Seat Dec 21 09:35 The GOP's Clinton? Dec 21 11:51 Pedal to the Metal? Dec 21 15:57 All the News That's Fit to O'MITT Dec 21 20:56 One Last Thing Dec 22 09:55 Blogger Challenge Dec 22 12:09 A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words Dec 23 00:10 Romney Tax Cut Positions Dec 23 01:51 This Will Leave a Mark
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Put Murtha In the Hot Seat
Stephen Tatum's civilian attorney, Jack Zimmerman, has suggested that the charges against LCpl. Tatum wouldn't have been brought if not for John Murtha's accusation that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." That's why, according to this article , he's asking that John Murtha and then Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee to submit to interviews to find out what they know:
A lance corporal charged with killing Iraqi civilians, including children, in Haditha in 2005 wants a military court to order U.S. Rep. John Murtha to submit to interviews about comments Murtha made accusing Marines of murder.John Murtha's irresponsible statements haven't been substantiated thus far. I doubt they ever will. Now Rep. Murtha is having the federal government argue that he can't be sued in civil court for his statements, arguing that his statements are covered by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.
Attorneys for Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum also want to force an interview with retired Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee about what Hagee may have said to Murtha or others about the Haditha killings.
Defense attorney Jack Zimmerman argued in a Camp Pendleton courtroom Wednesday that the charges Tatum faces may have come not because they were warranted, but rather as a result of pressure from top Marine Corps brass.
The slayings in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, triggered an international uproar and condemnation. Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, asserted publicly that he had learned from Marine Corps officials, including Hagee, that innocent Iraqis had been killed "in cold blood."
"We need to know if the commandant really said that," Zimmerman told the judge, Lt. Col. Eugene Robinson.
Simply put, Rep. Murtha is a disgusting, corrupt person who should be expelled from the House of Representatives for accusing the Haditha Marines before he'd even been briefed on the matter. When he accused these American heroes, Rep. Murtha ignored these Marines' Constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. It's quite possible that he violated LCpl. Tatum's due process rights by making these accusations before the investigation had finished.
Zimmerman said he plans to ask Robinson to dismiss the case, based on his contention that Tatum will not get a fair trial.Let's hope that Lt. Col. Robinson realizes that Tatum doesn't have a chance of getting a fair trial. What chance does LCpl. Tatum have for a fair trial after he's been accused by Murtha, the man who appropriates the money for the Pentagon's budget? Does anyone think that the Pentagon will ever go against Rep. Murtha?
The defense attorney raised concerns that potential jury members may have been unduly influenced by comments from commanders suggesting the accused Marines are guilty.
This process has been tainted from the outset. Americans everywhere should be outraged that our military heroes have been treated in such a shoddy manner, especially by a vindictive, power-hungry politician like John Murtha.
It's time for patriotic Americans everywhere to tell corruption magnets like John Murtha that they can't railroad American heroes anymore without suffering the wrath of We The People .
Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 1:15 AM
No comments.
The GOP's Clinton?
Mitt Romney has a 'figure of speech' problem . That's how a Clintonista would spin it. Personally, I'd say that he just got caught lying. Here's what I'm talking about:
Mitt Romney, who earlier this year had to backpedal on his hunting exploits, is explaining himself again after claiming an endorsement he did not receive and saying he witnessed his father in civil rights marches he could not have seen.When Mitt Romney says that his talking about his father marching with MLK was a figure of speech, it's nothing more than a clumsy attempt to not get called a bald-faced liar. That's the standard we used when we learned about Hillary being named after Sir Edmund Hillary even though she was born years before his climbing of Everest.
"It's a figure of speech," Romney said Thursday after media inquiries into the Republican presidential contender's statement during his recent religion speech that he watched his father, the late Gov. George Romney of Michigan, march with Martin Luther King Jr.
Romney, who was in high school at the time, later said he only heard of his father marching, and some historians have questioned whether his father, in fact, did march with King. The Romney campaign provided books and news articles it said supported his statement.
Romney said it was akin to him stating, "I saw my dad become president of American Motors." He told reporters in Iowa, "I wasn't there when he became president."
Based on that alone, I'd say that Gov. Romney has opened the floodgates on questions about his credibility. That's on top of his troubles with flip-flopping, then getting hung up on his flip-flops. I've already documented Gov. Romney's artificial pro life transformation here and here .
I'll pose these questions to GOP activists: Should we even consider voting for a man whose credibility is next to nothing? Shouldn't we demand that our candidates be straightforward and trustworthy? Shouldn't we reject the GOP's version of Hillary Clinton?
Let's compare Gov. Romney's answers with those of Sen. Thompson's. To the best of anyone's knowledge, has anyone questioned whether Sen. Thompson has answered their questions honestly? Isn't the biggest criticism against Sen. Thompson that he might be lazy on the campaign trail? (BTW, isn't he dispelling that myth with his two-week barnstorming blitz through Iowa?)
That isn't the only thing that Gov. Romney's getting questioned about:
Romney similarly backtracked after telling a national television audience Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I received the endorsement of the NRA" in 2002 while running for governor of Massachusetts.Gov. Romney's been in politics long enough to know what an official endorsement is. Simply put, Gov. Romney has a serious 'embellishment' problem. I'd also be ashamed that a Massachusetts Democrat would rate higher on Second Amendment issues than a so-called conservative.
The gun rights group did not endorse either candidate, and gave a higher issues rating to his Democratic opponent. Romney said Monday, "It was, if you will, a support phone bank, which is not an official endorsement."
It's worth noting that he got that rating in 2002. It's worth asking when his Second Amendment 'transformation' happened. In fact, should we believe that Gov. Romney's had a Second Amendment transformation? I wouldn't buy into that, especially considering Gov. Romney's troubled 'embellishment' history.
It's time to reject Gov. Romney. We rightfully railed against the Clintons' embellishments. If we're intellectually honest, it's imperative that we reject Gov. Romney's embellishments, too. We can't give a Republican a pass for embellishing if we want a shred of credibility.
Remember what happened last election? We got our heads handed to us because we didn't have any credibility when we accused Democrats of being the party of tax and spend liberals. Remember what happened the immigration disaster? That went up in flames because we didn't trust Ted Kennedy, John McCain and President Bush to enforce the borders.
Simply put, credibility doesn't just matter. If Republicans want to win in 2008, then credibility is the name of the game.
Serial embellishers needn't apply.
Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 9:39 AM
No comments.
Pedal to the Metal?
According to this article , Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have promised their Nutroots puppeteers that they'd keep the "pedal to the metal" in forcing an end to the Iraq war. Captain Ed suggests that they check the gas tank before starting on their trip. I heartily concur with Captain Ed. I'd say that they're running low if I didn't believe that they're currently running on fumes.
Junior Democrats describe an "Iraq fatigue" setting in among some members after dozens of successful withdrawal votes failed to drive a wedge between Republicans and President Bush on the war strategy.Next Christmas, the GOP should send each of the nuts in the Out of Iraq Caucus a big bouquet of flowers because they're driving the Democratic Party far outside the political mainstream. Time will tell if they drive it so far outside the mainstream that they drive Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker's job.
The restless Democrats acknowledge the war issue remains critically important for the country, but they would like to see their leaders tone down the rhetoric and avoid showdowns with Bush over the war, wherever possible.
Still, heading into 2008, Democrats have not articulated as clear a game plan on how to handle the political debate on the war as they had heading into 2007.
"My hope would be we start looking at real solutions instead of the dichotomy of cut funding versus stay forever," said Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who had a change of heart this fall after visiting Iraq and realizing the military surge was working.
"The entire policy has been dictated by the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' ... What are we going to do, have another 40 withdrawal votes?"
Brian Baird has the right idea, thought I don't think it'll do much good. If Democrats run on their current list of accomplishments, they'll take a bigtime pasting. They'd be far better off with working families if they didn't obey their MoveOn.org puppeteers. Working families want to see progress on a variety of issues, not the least of which is finalizing the FISA reform legislation.
And she suggested Democrats would somehow move to decouple the larger Iraq debate from the struggle with Bush and the Republicans over war funding.If that's going to be the Democrats' focus next year, I'm betting that voters will suffer 'Iraq fatigue'. If that happens, they'll simply tune Ms. Pelosi out. Not to be outdone, Sen. Reid joins the anti-war choir:
"This will always be the pre-eminent issue until it is not there any more," she said. "The war, the war, the war: It eclipses everything we do here."
In the Senate, Reid vowed no retreat on the war either, despite a united Republican Conference that has been able to repeatedly frustrate Democrats by filibustering attempts to force Bush's hand on the war.Thank you, Harry Reid. Next fall, we'll remind people that the Reid Senate focused all its attention on witch hunts of the Bush administration and voting to lose the war. When candidates and incumbents run next fall, voters will want to know what they did to improve their lives. The miniscule list of accomplishments they'll be able to cite will earn the voters' wrath, not their votes.
"We have had 33 [recorded] votes on Iraq and we are going to have more votes on Iraq. We are going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," the Nevada Democrat said. "We are going to push on this. The American people are dissatisfied with what is going on there."
Meanwhile, Republicans can point to holding together instead of voting for unilateral, and bipartisan, defeat in Iraq. By itself, that's abig accomplishment for Republicans. They'll also be able to lay out their agenda for 2009. Here's another gift from the Reid Senate:
Another option being considered by some top Democrats is to pass a short-term wartime funding bill, running only until September or October, which would force Republicans to vote on the issue again shortly before the November elections.If Iraq continues its improvement, Iraq will be the last thing that Democrats will want to oppose right before facing voters. Voting against a rapidly improving Iraq isn't my idea of a win-win situation. It sounds more like a disaster waiting to happen.
And early high-profile hearings are planned to hear again in March from Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there, on the progress of the war and the efforts to bring about political reconciliation.If Sen. Reid was capable of not marching to his Nutroots puppeteers, he'd realize that having Gen. Petraeus testify to the great progress being made will have a similar impact as Gen. Petraeus' testimony this September had.
Many Republicans, buoyed by the declining violence in Iraq, hope Petraeus will announce accelerated troop withdrawals, potentially defusing the war as a front-burner election issue.
If Sen. Reid keeps pushing this, expect Democrats facing re-election to abandon him. Ditto with the freshmen Democrats in the House.
Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 11:52 AM
No comments.
All the News That's Fit to O'MITT
I've ripped Hugh Hewitt more than a few times, sometimes because he's ignored Romney's liberalism, sometimes for Romney's flip-flops. Now I'm indicting Mr. Hewitt for pulling a NY Times-styled stunt: He isn't talking about O'MITT's truth-telling troubles . I posted about Romney's embellishment troubles here . Imagine my not being surprised that those troubles didn't make it into Hugh's Romney talking points today. Mr. Hewitt did find time to write about (surprise, surprise) how wonderfully everything's shaping up for Mitt here :
Expect Romney to fiercely defend this lead even as he attempts a comeback in Iowa. Romney has the best position, at or near the top of the first three contests, plenty of money, and a lot more story to tell. He's absorbed every hit the field could deliver including the latest silly debate over whether his father was with Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement. The anti-Romney spammers fill my e-mail box with accusations, and the mature voters laugh and laugh at them.I'm one of those 'spammers' that just happens to think that honesty matters. I'm someone that thinks that credibility matters. Mitt doesn't have any credibility. Neither does Mr. Hewitt. In fact, Mr. Hewitt's approaching laughingstock status on the blogosphere.
- How many people think that Romney's fibbing about getting the NRA's endorsement is "silly"?
- How many people think that Romney's inability to credibly answer when his abortion transformation actually happened is "silly"?
- How many people think that Romney's Second Amendment troubles are "silly"?
People don't want to be led by someone that might or might not head in the direction you want. Mitt Romney has a serious embellishment problem. Considering all the money he's dumped into Iowa and New Hampshire, he should be miles ahead in both states. Instead, he's trailing Mike Huckabee in Iowa and clinging to a shrinking lead in New Hampshire.
Here's where Hewitt sounds most defensive:
It is, in short, an election about an enormous array of very complicated issues. Voters are serious and informed in ways they have never been before, and the first GOP primary in the era of new media does not allow the absurd to derail the serious.Mr. Hewitt's right that this is an election about serious things. That's why Fred Thompson will do far better than Hewitt is letting on. As I said here , Fred Thompson is the gold standard on the full spectrum of issues, whether we're talking immigration reform and border enforcement, foreign policy, especially Iran and Iraq, or limited government conservatism or nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges.
Hewitt's characterization of Gov. Romney's credibility problems as absurd is pure spin. There's nothing absurd about it. In fact, it's the main reason why Gov. Romney hasn't come close to closing the deal with voters.
In Hewitt's rose-colored world, conservative activists think of MittCare as being a Godsend. In the real world, conservatives ask "Can you picture Ronald Reagan signing MittCare into law?"
In Hewitt's rose-colored world, conservative activists think that Romney's explanations on his abortion flip-flops aren't a big deal. In the real world, conservatives ask why they should believe Romney when he can't give a credible answer on the matter. (BTW, if Romney's so solidly pro life, why is Fred piling up the state right to life endorsements while Romney is getting shut out? It couldn't be that absurd credibility thing, could it? Or might it be that flip-flop thing?)
All that Mr. Hewitt has done is talk horserace and money. He's clearly avoided talking about Fred Thompson's depth of understanding on the gamut of issues. He's trashed McCain, justifiably in my opinion, over the Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold and the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco. He's justifiably trashed Huckabee's foreign policy ditherings. But the most that he's said about Fred Thompson was his Harry Reid-like prediction that " Fred didn't rally ."
Hugh, let's talk about that prediction 2 weeks from now.
Thus Romney's support has and will remain solid, and may even grow as focus on the challenges ahead underscore the importance of smarts and competence married to energy and a presidential appearance.With all due respect to Mr. Hewitt, objective people don't agree with any part of that assessment. Here's what JB Williams said about the volatility of Romney's support:
In short, Romney's support is very volatile. In fact, main stream Republicans, even those who have polled for the top tier candidates for months, continue to shift around from perceived "front-runner" to the "front-runner" of the week. The top four are secure as only the top four. But who in the top four will ultimately emerge as the nominee remains totally fluid.Here's what he said about Romney's "looking presidential":
Romney "looks" Presidential. But Thompson "is" Presidential. That's not only my opinion, it's a fact,All it takes to look presidential is the money for a fancy wardrobe and a good makeup team. To be presidential takes much, much more. Here's what Tim Carney with Human Events wrote about Sen. Thompson :
The "X factor" in this race is former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.). Most Iowa Republicans did not even mention his name in discussing candidates they supported or opposed. He simply does not register in the minds of potential GOP caucus-goers, but when asked about him, voters have little negative to say.Here's what Carney said about Romney:
Thompson has far more upside potential than any other Republican, and he is spending the entire final stretch in the Hawkeye State. Thompson has perhaps the most broadly conservative record of any candidate besides the three congressmen (see below). Many conservative Iowans currently settling for Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee (or planning a protest vote of sorts for one of the congressmen) could certainly jump on board with Thompson. If he defies his reputation as a lazy worker, he could make a spectacular surge here.
The top candidates have downsides on policy; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is seen as a flip-flopper , former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is socially liberal and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee believes in big government, and electability: Romney's Mormonism, Giuliani's marriages and Huckabee's lack of funds and overt religiosity.In other words, Romney's support isn't nearly as rock solid as Hewitt led us to believe. (Must be that "absurd" credibility thing raising its ugly head again.) In fact, Carney's thoughts on the volatility of Romney's support sounds suspiciously similar to JB Williams' opinions.
I'll just pose this last question to Mr. Hewitt: How can you say that Mitt Romney is a conservative after he signed the MittCare health insurance bill? Ronald Reagan would've vetoed that bill within 10 seconds of it reaching his desk.
Finally, I'll just say this: The wheels aren't coming off of Romney's conservative 'bus' because that bus never existed outside of Hugh Hewitt's rose-colored world. Anyone that'd have us believe that a governor (a) with Second Amendment troubles with the NRA, (b) that signs state-mandated health care that includdes abortion coverage and (c) that isn't a federalist is a conservative is simply fooling themselves.
UPDATE: Mitt Rommney digs himself even deeper on 'seeing' his father, George Romney march with MLK in this YouTube video:
Sounds like Hugh Hewitt isn't the only person with rose-colored glasses troubles.
Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 7:13 PM
Comment 1 by Michael at 21-Dec-07 09:41 PM
Hearing Mr. Romney define "saw" made me flashback to Bill Clinton discussing the definition of the word "is".
These flubs plus Romney's defense of the assault weapons bill make him utterly untrustworthy in my book.
I find that life is much more enjoyable since I quit listening to Mr. Hewitt. Plenty of other sources for political content.
One Last Thing
This afternoon, I ridiculed Hugh Hewitt for his 'analysis' of the presidential race on the GOP side of things. I regret omitting my opinion of a rather important thing that Hewitt said. Here's the section of Hewitt's post that I should've opined about:
So as attention turns to Christmas and then football and resolutions, we are exactly where the GOP always ends up: gathering behind the most conservative, electable Republican, who this year turns out to be Mitt Romney.Notice how craftily Hewitt doesn't say that the GOP had gathered around the most conservative Republican. He knows that he'd be laughed at from coast to coast and border to border if he said that. Instead, he adds electable in as an additional qualifier.
Mr. Hewitt doesn't say why Romney is the most electable candidate, just that he is the most electable. He also didn't bother to explain why Rudy or Fred aren't just as electable. Certainly, Rudy and Fred are more conservative than his boy Mitt, though Rudy isn't appreciably more conservative.
Mr. Hewitt would have us believe that all that's needed to be the next GOP presidential nominee is a fat bank account and a good makeup artist. The trouble with that is that that's how Democrats pick their nominee. That isn't how Republicans pick their nominee.
- We demand people of integrity, consistency and gravitas.
- We demand that the person be a statesman who understands the world and all its problems.
- We demand that that person also have the solutions to those problems.
Let's also remember Hewitt proclaiming Romney the winner of the DMR Debate :
I watched the entire debate on a JetBlue cross-country flight, missing only one answer where Romney said something about eduction that made the Luntz focus group needles hit the ceiling of approval. (The captain was updating us on landing time.)The problem with basing who won by what the focus group said is that there's a big difference between the instant winner and the enduring winner. Here's David Yepsen's analysis of who won that debate:
I was also able to hear Fred, Morton, Brit and Nina chew on the results, but it was the collective reaction of the Frank Luntz focus group on the Fox News Channel that was most riveting.
Watch it for yourself. Romney swept nearly the entire room. If that group reflects the GOP primary electorate, Romney helped himself immensely today.
Fred Thompson came out on top in Wednesday's debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa. Of all the candidates, he did himself the most good.Luntz's group focused on who sounded best, which isn't unimportant in and of itself. Yepsen's opinion was based on meatier considerations, like who gave a great explanation on entitlement reform, who refused to play the moderator's games, who set the example for doing what a leader does, not what he looks like.
Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney also scored well. They avoided any last-minute derailments of their front-running candidacies in Iowa and shored up the support they've built.
But it was Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, who was specific, good-humored and exuded an executive persona during the low-key, 90-minute session that was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.
He had several high points. One of them came when he flatly refused to play the 'raise your hand' game in answering a question about global warming. Another came when he said the biggest problem facing education was the National Education Association. (Bashing teacher unions is always popular with Republican audiences.)
Thompson also gets credit for being a stand-up guy willing to take on entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country if left unchanged. He made it clear that wealthy, older Americans could no longer expect full Medicare benefits if he's elected. Thompson also teased Romney about his wealth and how the former Massachusetts governor is "getting to be a pretty good actor."
UPDATE: I wonder how Mr. Hewitt will react when he learns that Fred Thompson handily won Michelle Malkin's poll , more than doubling up Mitt Romney.
Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 8:58 PM
No comments.
Blogger Challenge
This morning, I decided to engage Hugh Hewitt in a unique challenge. I outlined the challenge in this email:
Hugh, Let's see what you think of this idea. Let's have a contest between you & me to see who can make the better case for our candidates. You make the case for Mitt, I'll critique it. Then I'll make the case for Fred, then you critique it.I'll keep you posted on whether Hugh responds or not. This should be interesting.
Are you willing to take the challenge? Are you willing to make this about horserace & issues or do you want to make it all about petty things like "looks presidential"?
The ball's in your court. The clock is ticking.
Gary Gross
Let Freedom Ring Blog
www.letfreedomringblog.com
Posted Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Comment 1 by K T Cat at 23-Dec-07 10:03 AM
Hugh has turned into a one-sided goon. I seriously doubt he would take you up on this.
I'm with you on supporting Fred.
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words
Everyone's heard the cliche that a picture is worth a thousand words. I've often agreed with that but I can't this time. This picture is worth much more than that.
PunditReview Radio's Kevin has some thoughts on Time's Man of the Year choice that you'll want to read.
It's worth noting that the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol got it right in naming the real Man of the Year.
It's great seeing Bill Kristol's clear-headedd thinking about Iraq. It's a shame that the elite media won't admit that Gen. Petraeus' growing list of accomplishments is remarkable. I don't believe that they don't know this. Instead, they, like their allies in the Democratic Party, can't admit to these successes because that'd mean that they'd have to admit that President Bush's decision paid off.I remember the excitement. It was the week before Christmas a year ago, and I had lazily picked up my copy of Time magazine. And there it was: Time's Person of the Year for 2006 is "You."
Wow! We deserved credit, Time judged, "for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game." Thanks, Time!
And thanks for not choosing the obvious alternative--Nancy Pelosi, who had led the Democratic takeover of Congress. That takeover, Time editors and many others hoped, heralded our withdrawal from Iraq.However much they may have desired that outcome, Time was lucky not to select Pelosi. In the subsequent 12 months, she and her colleagues failed to impose a defeat in Iraq. Instead, President Bush announced a new strategy and a new commander, General David Petraeus, in January 2007. And all the real achievements of this year belong to them.
We are now winning the war. To say this was not inevitable is an understatement. Even those of us who were early advocates and strong supporters of the surge, and who thought it could succeed, knew the situation had so deteriorated that success was by no means guaranteed. Two military experts told me early in 2007 that they thought the odds of success were, respectively, 1-in-3 and 1-in-4. They nonetheless supported the surge because, even at those odds, it was a gamble worth taking, so devastating would be the consequences of withdrawal and defeat. We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD thought the chances of success were better than 50-50, but that it remained a difficult proposition.
Petraeus pulled it off. The war is not over, of course. Too quick and deep a drawdown--which some in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the Bush administration are, appallingly, pushing for--could throw away the amazing success that has been achieved. Still: It is as clear as anything can be in this world, where we judge through a glass darkly, that General David H. Petraeus is, in fact, America's man of the year.
The editors couldn't acknowledge their mugging by reality. That's fine. Nonetheless, reality exists. And the reality is that in Iraq, after mistakes and failures, thanks to the leadership of Bush, Petraeus, and General Ray Odierno--the day-to-day commander whose contributions shouldn't be overlooked--we are winning.In other words, Petraeus' plan and Odierno's execution of that plan has been nothing short of brilliant. As a result, Iraq is being transformed bit by bit. (I'll readily admit that some of those bits are fairly large.) Without this radical change in direction, there wouldn't have been an Anbar Awakening, which is currently spreading throughout Iraq.
The reality is also this: The counterinsurgency campaign that Petraeus and Odierno conceived and executed in 2007 was as comprehensive a counterinsurgency strategy as has ever been executed. The heart of the strategy was a brilliant series of coordinated military operations throughout the entire theater. Petraeus and Odierno used conventional U.S. forces, Iraqi military and police, and Iraqi and U.S. Special Operations forces to strike enemy strongholds throughout Iraq simultaneously, while also working to protect the local populations from enemy responses. Successive operations across the theater knocked the enemy--both al Qaeda and Sunni militias, and Shia extremists--off balance and then prevented them from recovering. U.S. and Iraqi forces, supported by local citizens, chased the enemy from area to area, never allowing them the breathing space to reestablish safe havens, much less new bases. It wasn't "whack-a-mole" or "squeezing the water balloon" as some feared (and initially claimed)--it was the relentless pursuit of an increasingly defeated enemy.
That defeat has implications far beyond Iraq. In 2007, Iraq's Sunni Arabs fought with us against al Qaeda, and Iraq's Shia Arabs joined with us to fight Iranian-backed Shia militias. So much for the notion that Americans were doomed to fail in their efforts to mobilize moderate Muslims against jihadists. The progress in Iraq in 2007 represents a strategic breakthrough for the broader Middle East whose importance would be hard to overstate.While Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Odierno get the full credit for developing and executing a brilliant plan, it wouldn't be right to not recognize President Bush's part in this. Years from now, President Bush will be given great credit for changing the face of the Middle East. That's because he believed, like Ronald Reagan before him, that freedom is the yearning of every human heart. That conviction drove his Iraq policy. Without that big picture perspective, none of this wouild've happened.
This year of incredible accomplishments in Iraq says one thing: that Gen. David Petraeus is the Man of the Year. That's undeniable fact. Time and the Democrats can't argue against that.
Posted Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:13 PM
No comments.
Romney Tax Cut Positions
According to this post on RCP's blog , Mitt Romney didn't support President Bush's 2003 tax cuts. According to this article , people are reminding him of his 'change in attitude'. First, here's the central point in RCP's post:
After refusing to endorse President Bush's tax cuts when he was governor, Mitt Romney has now made them a central part of his presidential campaign, stirring accusations that he is changing his position to appeal to GOP primary voters.Check out the Romney campaign's defensiveness when a heckler reminded people about Gov. Romney's position on President Bush's tax cuts:
In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush's tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.
But the McCain comment came back to bite him in the question-and-answer session when a young man grilled him with, "You yourself refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts as governor in 2003, saying you wouldn't be a cheerleader for a tax break you didn't support. Isn't your attack tonight, sir, hypocritical in this respect and is this not another flip flop added to the ones identified by Tim Russert on Meet The Press last Sunday?"Based on the RCP post, I'd say he took time out from "being a governor" to argue against President Bush's tax cuts while proposing a gas tax increase. Now notice how the Romney campaign tried dealing with the question:
Romney chuckled and gave a hearty "no." He went on to defend himself from the question, explaining that he was busy being a governor but did the support the cuts and campaigned for Bush in his re-election race.
Following the event, Romney New Hampshire communications adviser Rich Killion volunteered that the questioner was likely a McCain plant. Pounced on by reporters after Romney concluded, he gave only his first name, Sam, and said he's registered to vote in Massachusetts and is a student. "I like to meet the candidates," he said and added that he is undecided about his vote at this point.I don't know whether "Sam" is part of the McCain campaign or not. Honestly, I don't think that's particularly relevant. I find it quite relevant, though, that Gov. Romney's aides are trying to make "Sam" the story. I don't blame them for taking that approach. I'd likely do the same thing if I were in their shoes. The story isn't whether Sam's a McCain plant. To me, the story is that Romney has dramatically changed his positions...again.
It's now apparent that Gov. Romney has changed positions on several high priority issues since 2003. That raises the question of whether he'd change positions if elected president. I've thought for quite some time that Romney is his own worst enemy in the sense that he's in trouble when people examine what he's saying, not just how he's saying something.
It's part of his "looks presidential" package. Pundits say that he looks president as though that was important. Thus far, they haven't examined his answers, which is how candidates should be judged. If you look at his answers during debates and TV appearances, you'll notice that they sound good initially but that they stink when scrutinized on their merits.
For instance, when Tim Russert asked Romney if he'd sign a similar health care bill as president, Romney replied that he wouldn't, that he's a federalist. I'm all for federalism but Romney isn't. The reason I know is because of an answer he gave during the Florida YouTube debate. He was asked if, in a post-Roe v. Wade world, he'd sign a bill banning abortions nationwide. Romney replied that he would.
How is that a federalist position? One of the reasons Constitutional experts say Roe v. Wade is a bad decision is because it's a states' rights issue. Signing a federal ban on abortion is no better from a federalist standpoint than mandating it from the Supreme Court. Whether it's banned with federal legislation or mandated by the US Supreme Court, it's something that state legislatures should craft their own remedies to.
Another example is his canned answer that he's pro life. As I've pointed out repeatedly, he isn't pro life because of the health insurance plan he signed into law. That law now mandates taxpayer-funded abortion coverage. Again, the rhetoric doesn't match the record.
At some point, people will examine what he's saying. When that happens, he'll be in big trouble because his rhetoric doesn't match his record. That's the ultimate price of his inconsistencies.
Tell NRO and Hugh Hewitt to get out the bilge pumps because their candidate is taking on water. BIGTIME.
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:11 AM
No comments.
This Will Leave a Mark
A new 527 ad might start changing the political landscape in Iowa and South Carolina. The advertisement is from the American Right to Life Action group. It provides a stunning rebuke of Romney's insistence that he's pro life . Here's the transcript of the advertisement:
Once upon a time there was a man named Mitt who said a very bad thing:Here's how Gov. Romney responded to the ad:
Romney: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country"
Then he thought of campaigning in Utah and said something different. "I am NOT pro-choice!"
But when he came back to liberal Massachusetts:
Romney: "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
Then in 2004 he magically became pro-life, but only six months later:
Romney: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to law related to abortion and choice."
The spell must have worn off.
Now he's on the campaign trail again, and he's back to being pro-life.
Romney: "I was pro-choice; I'm pro-life." , "I changed my position" , "I never said I was pro-choice."
Narrator: BR: Mitt Romney, willing to sacrifice children, lying for your vote.
Paid for by American Right-to-Life Action.
"My record in being pro-life is very clear as the governor of Massachusetts, and my guess is that there is some group that is pulling for another candidate and is trying to find someway to go after me, and that is just the nature of politics," he said.That isn't being clear. That's a picture of being utterly 'confused' on the life issue. How can you be "pro-life...as the governor of Massachusetts" while stating halfways through his only term that "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to law related to abortion and choice"? How can he be pro life when he signed a health care bill into law that establishes a $50 co-pay for abortions?
I'll agree with Gov. Romney that this 527 might be pulling for another candidate, though it's quite possible that they're just pulling for their policy position. I'll even agree that their closing rhetoric is over the top. That said, their rhetoric is irrelevant. Gov. Romney's statements are his statements since they're verifiable.
If this 527 is pulling for another candidate, the next logical question is to ask why they're pulling for a different candidate. Based on the fact that they've accumulated this collection of contradictory statements says that they're opposing Gov. Romney because they don't trust his statements that he's pro life. Why should they?
As for Romney's questioning why this organization is running this ad, is that his attempt to say that this organization has ulterior motives? Perhaps but irrelevant. Gov. Romney's contradictions are Gov. Romney's contradicions.
More importantly, some of these contradictory statements were made after Gov. Romney supposedly had a pro life transformation. This advertisement, coupled with Gov. Romney's changing positions on tax cuts , cements in discerning people's minds that Mitt Romney never met a position he wouldn't change if it suited him politically.
GOP activists should demand that our nominee is steadfast in holding the right policy positions. Thus far, Mitt Romney has flunked that test on the life issue and tax cuts, two of the most important issues to conservatives.
Finally, what other positions has Gov. Romney been less than forthright on? Let's be honest: If someone isn't trustworthy, they don't belong in elected office, especially as the leader of the free world.
Posted Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:52 AM
Comment 1 by Emory Levy at 23-Dec-07 10:17 PM
Food for Thought: Once upon a time I was a rabid Democrat...as I matured, I travelled, and I studied politic with its turns and twists, I have become a conservative. I have evolved and changed my position as to my beliefs. Point: Because of my experineces, I can understand Romney's explanation.
Re: Religion...If you believe in a God and that he is a Supreme Being....if you believe Jesus is the Son of God and Savior, what is your understanding of Satan? is He also the Son of God and the brother of Jesus? If not, who is Satan? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God...we believe other Christians have a part of the truth but not all of it which comes by revelation. We believe that all faiths have the same Heavenly Father (God) including Muslims, Hindus, etc. For further enlightment, contact the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you, and have a happy holiday and a prosperous New Year. Emory Levy
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-07 11:02 PM
Satan & Christ weren't brothers. Christ was always part of the Deity. Satan was an angel who tried exalting himself above God. There's a huge difference between angels & God.
