January 26-27, 2007
Jan 26 01:17 They Call This Supporting the Troops? Jan 26 02:05 Too Many Jews on Holocaust Council Jan 26 03:43 Misleading Headline of the Day Jan 26 11:24 Fighting Back, Turning Up the Heat Jan 26 19:46 Pelosi, Murtha Visit Iraq, Schedule Phony Photo Ops Jan 26 20:25 The Only Resolution Worth Debating Jan 27 08:23 Hagel Toys With Presidential Run
Prior Years: 2006
They Call This Supporting the Troops?
Next Tuesday, Russ Feingold will explore whether they can cut off funds for the Iraq war.
Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-WI), has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday in his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. The move comes as Congress prepares to vote on a congressional resolution opposing President Bush's escalation of the war.While we hear that Democrats support the troops, Sen. Feingold wants to terminate the Iraq war and guarantee the latest Democrat-induced military defeat. Most people will see this for what it is: proof that Democrats hate the use of the military for all but the most obvious situations. This is also proof that their nonbinding resolutions are just the first step in their plan. Their next step is suckering Republicans into a trap so that it isn't a big step to cut off funding for Iraq.
Feingold, a fierce war critic, will force Democrats to consider an option many consider politically suicidal: denying funds to the military and U.S. soldiers to force a quicker end to the war. Democratic leaders have privately called on members to restrain from cutting off funding and focus on congressional resolutions condemning the Bush policy. The resolutions are nonbinding and therefore symbolic.
Conservatives should thank Sen. Feingold because he's forcing his gutless caucus into taking an actual stand. While I'm thankful that he's putting his money where his mouth is, the worrisome part is that it's awful policy. I'm actually hoping that Sen. Feingold tries introducing something in the full Senate to cut off funding for the war so that America can see that Democrats aren't interested in winning in Iraq.
"Congress holds the power of the purse and of the president continues to advance his failed Iraq policy, we have have the responsibility to use that power to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq," Feingold said in a statement released by his office on Thursday. "I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation's foreign policy."Sen. Feingold's legislation would be a Godsend for Republican candidates and strategists. It would put Democrats in the awful position of either splitting the party or supporting legislation that's political suicide in 2008. It would force Obama and Hillary in the awful position of going on the record at a time when they think of the Iraq War as radioactive. Hillary can't afford to alienate the militant anti-war base of the party but she can't afford voting to cut off funding for the troops because it'll doom her in the general election.
Obama has a little more wiggle room on the issue because he wasn't in the Senate when they authorized war on Iraq and because he hasn't danced back and forth on the issue. Still, he can't afford to vote for Feingold's legislation because it would eliminate him as a serious candidate in 2008, too.
Another indicator of what Democrats really think is when you hear them say that they want to get our troops out of harm's way. You'd think that someone would tell them that that's what militaries are paid to do. You'd think they'd realize that defeating the terrorists would translate into a reduction in the terrorist threat to innocent civilians.
All GOP activists and most GOP legislators know that militaries are meant to protect civilians. They also know that pulling troops from a war with jihadists means protecting the troops while putting American civilians in harm's way. Conversely, Democrats' actions say that they prefer getting troops out of harm's way while increasing the risk to innocent civilians.
I'd ask Republicans everywhere, whether they're senators, congressmen, strategists or activists, to take every opportunity to point this out to their co-workers, their friends and their opponents.
Posted Friday, January 26, 2007 1:18 AM
No comments.
Too Many Jews on Holocaust Council
Of all the things that I didn't expect to read tonight, that headline tops the list. Wait until you read the details of it. I'll bet the ranch that you'll get you steamed in a hurry, especially if you're a friend of Israel's like I am.
Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.In other words, Carter was secretly anti-Semitic as President. I wouldn't normally say that but what other conclusion can you come to when then-President Carter rejected a Christian for the Council because his name "sounded too Jewish"? I can't imagine someone saying that, much less the President of the United States.
Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."
After reading this, I'll have to revise the statements I made in this post, where I said:
I can't disagree with these advisers saying that President Carter has become a pro-Palestinian advocate. What I'm wondering is why they didn't notice sooner. During his presidency, he attempted to appear fair-minded.Had I known about President Carter's statement then, I wouldn't have made those remarks. Recently, he's taken a decidedly anti-Israeli stance. It appears as though that's just him 'coming out of the anti-Semitic closet'.
Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.That memo and his current book are all the proof I need of Carter's anti-Semitism. This further cements Carter's standing as one of the worst Presidents and the worst ex-president in American history.
He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations for council board members.
He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, "Too many Jews."
The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was initialed by Carter.
Freedman said at the time the board he constructed was about 80-percent Jewish, including many Holocaust survivors.How could anyone find it objectionable that Mr. Freedman would construct a board for the Holocaust Memorial Museum that had actual Holocaust survivors? How could President Carter reject a board that was 80 percent Jewish for such a museum? Frankly, President Carter is now a laughingstock and a disgrace.
Posted Friday, January 26, 2007 2:06 AM
No comments.
Misleading Headline of the Day
If you must went by the headline, you'd form a different opinion than if you actually read the article. Here's what I'm talking about:
Ex-Spokeswoman Contradicts Libby Account
That sounds pretty ominous, right? Now read the article's opening paragraphs:
Vice President Dick Cheney's spokeswoman testified Thursday she told I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby that a prominent war critic's wife was a CIA employee earlier than Libby has said he first learned it from a reporter.It's really sounding like Libby's proverbial goose is cooked, right? Guess again. Here's the very next paragraph:
On the third day of Libby's trial, Cathie Martin became the first member of Cheney's inner circle to contradict statements by Libby that led to the charges he lied to the FBI and a grand jury investigating who leaked the wife's identity to reporters in 2003.
Theodore Wells, defense lawyer for Cheney's former chief of staff, quickly sought to limit any damage from the testimony of Cheney's former assistant for public affairs.
Wells got Martin to acknowledge that she herself could not recall for sure whether she relayed the information about CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, to Cheney and Libby on June 11, 2003, or as late as July 6, 2003.We suddenly have a totally different perspective on Libby's guilt. After all, Libby's defense is saying that Libby didn't perjure himself. They're claiming that Libby made a simple mistake caused by faulty memory.
Based on what I've read thus far, Libby's team has gotten three witnesses to admit that they told conflicting accounts to investigators and to the grand jury that indicted Libby.
Here's what I included in my first post about Fitzgerald's first witness:
The government's first witness in the CIA leak trial acknowledged Wednesday that he made inconsistent statements about his conversations with former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now on trial for lying to investigators.I later made this comment:
Fitzgerald can argue till he's blue in the face but I'd say this first witness dealt him a crushing blow to recover from. Don't be surprised if jurors tell us after the trial that the prosecution's first witness admitting to telling conflicting stories left a lasting bad impression of the prosecution. I'd have to think that this destroys Fitzgerald's theory of the crime, too. After all, if he's told this jury that it's implausible that Scooter Libby would forget conversations, how does he explain away his first witness telling conflicting stories?Fitzgerald's case is looking weaker and weaker by the day. How can Fitzgerald argue that it's "implausible that "Libby would forget several conversations he had with officials about Plame", then have three of his own witnesses testify that they couldn't recall their accounts of events? It appears that Fitzgerald's witnesses are making Libby's case for him. That isn't a good sign for the prosecution.
Posted Friday, January 26, 2007 3:44 AM
No comments.
Fighting Back, Turning Up the Heat
That's what Dafna Linzner is reporting in this morning's Washington Post:
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.It's about time we took the gloves off and let our troops fight back with lethal force. If Iran wants to deploy troops to this war, they should be made to pay with their lives. We should let Iran know that their interference will be met with extreme resistance and that we won't worry what the world community thinks. When history records its verdict, it should be said that we replaced our 'catch-and-release' strategy with a 'shoot-first-ask questions-later' strategy.
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.
"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."
We're told that the Islamic extremists' greatest goal is to die a martyr's death while fighting 'the infidels'. The U.S. military's goal should be to 'unilaterally' help these extremists meet that goal.
The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.It'd be nice if the end was in sight but I'm thankful that the Bush administration is dramatically expanding the war by confronting Iran's influence on the region. I'm thankful that they've finally changed the ROE, essentially letting soldiers do the job that they were intended to do. I like this more aggressive strategy, too. Now we're telling that region's despots that there's a heavy price to be paid for undercutting our allies and killing our soldiers.
The administration's plans contain five "theaters of interest," as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.
Telling Tehran that we're serious won't stop their meddling but it will tamp down on their efforts to undermine the Iraqi government.
Iran's sending of troops, trainers and munitions indicates just how serious a threat an Iraqi democracy is to their mullahcracy. Knowing that Tehran views a stable Iraq as major threat, we should redouble our efforts to drive them from Iraq. I'd argue that this information should provide the incentive for us to get after Iran with lethal force rather than through diplomacy.
In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.That's a smart policy. Targeting Iranian diplomats isn't essential because they aren't the problem in Iraq. Targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard and their intelligence operatives is a different story, though because they're the source of the problem. Attacking peripheral targets is of limited value. Hitting the source is how you solve problems.
On a related matter, this article tells me that Sen. Hagel's resolution is arguing against a new, more aggressive, strategy designed to stop the Iranians. This tells me that Sen. Hagel is nothing more than a grandstanding politician who isn't interested in the facts on the ground.
For that reason, I renew my plea to GOP activists in Nebraska to recruit a primary challenger to Sen. Hagel so we can get rid of him ASAP.
Posted Friday, January 26, 2007 11:25 AM
No comments.
Pelosi, Murtha Visit Iraq, Schedule Phony Photo Ops
The SF Chronicle is reporting that Nancy Pelosi is meeting with al-Maliki today. Here's what we know:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has traveled to Iraq for a quick fact-finding visit that will include a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.After endlessly criticizing the Iraq War, Pelosi and Murtha have finally made a trip to Iraq. This is merely for show. Don't think that this is about gathering information. It's about them getting a photo-op, then adding the words "I just returned from Iraq" to their endless criticism of the President Bush's policies.
The congressional delegation traveling with the Democratic speaker from San Francisco includes Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, (D-MO), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), who more than a year ago urged President Bush to withdraw American forces from Iraq and is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the military budget.
The AP has quoted Ms. Pelosi in this article:
"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others' point of view," Pelosi, (D-CA), said, in brief remarks after the meeting. She said the delegation also came "to convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people for what they're doing, to applaud their patriotism."I'd love to hear Ms. Pelosi explain how she and Murtha can demoralize the troops and embolden the terrorists in one breath then say that they want to "convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people" and "applaud their patriotism" with their next breath. She must know that they're undercutting the troops' mission and that that can't have a positive effect on the troops.
It's downright infuriating to hear Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra of "We support the troops but not the mission." It isn't just Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra, either. It's the Democrats' mantra, too. Frankly, it's insulting, especially in light of Sen. Feingold's announcement that he's scheduled a hearing on whether Congress "has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq."
"I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation's foreign policy."This hearing is purely show. He knows that Congress has the power of the purse and can stop funding the war at any time. His framing this hearing that way is disingenuous to the max. If Ms. Pelosi is right that the "American people" "appreciate their patriotism and what they're doing" so much, why is Sen. Feingold introducing legislation that will prevent them from doing what they're trained to do?
Let's not forget what Gen. Petraeus testified to during his confirmation hearing:
"If we are to carry out the Multinational Force Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential, as will greatly increased support by our government's other agencies, additional resources for reconstruction and economic initiatives, and a number of other actions critical to what must be a broad, comprehensive, multifaceted approach to the challenges in Iraq," Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus said at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.In other words, pacifists like Feingold, Murtha and Kucinich are either saying that (a) they think that Gen. Petraeus is lying under oath; that (b) he's just the Bush administration's mouthpiece; that (c) they don't care about defeating the terrorists in Iraq or (d) all of the above. That's hardly the way to show appreciation to genuine patriots.
I'd add that it's obvious from Gen. Petraeus' history in Iraq that he's an advocate of the President's plan. He used the same policy to clean up Mosul, which is a genuine Iraqi success story. The least Feingold, Pelosi and Murtha should do is give this policy a chance.
One thing that the politicians have lost track of is that the American people demand that the government to protect us from future terrorist attacks. Leaving Iraq in defeat won't prevent future terrorist attacks; it will encourage terrorists to increase the number of attacks. President Bush's role as Commander-In-Chief mandates that he do that. The AUMF that the House and Senate passed in the days immediately after 9/11 mandates President Bush to do that, too.
If Feingold and others cut off funding for the troops, they'll essentially be telling the American people that the Constitution's mandating the protection of the American homeland is limited in scope, something that they'd have a difficult time defending.
If Pelosi, Murtha and Feingold stop funding the war, terrorist attacks will happen. When they do, the blood of Americans will be on their hands because they will have made it easier for terrorists to operate and plan.
Pelosi and Murtha going to Iraq, like much of what Democrats do, is purely show. They went there with their 'verdict' rendered. They're just gathering anecdotal information which they'll use to justify the policies they've been held since Thanksgiving, 2005. They should be ashamed of themselves for calling this a fact-finding trip because they aren't there to gather information. They're there for a couple photo ops and a couple meaningless soundbites. Frankly, they wouldn't know a new fact if it bit them in their sizable backsides.
Posted Friday, January 26, 2007 7:56 PM
No comments.
The Only Resolution Worth Debating
I'm tired of hearing the Democrats yapping about the President's failed policies. I'm tired of hearing them say that we can't win in Iraq, that it's time to start logistical plans to pull the troops out of Iraq. Most of all, I'm tired of hearing RINO's like Little Chuckie Hagel, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith and Olympia Snowe intending to vote for the Hagel non-binding resolution that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed this week. It's time for Republicans to draft a real resolution that sides with the military and the American people. I've taken the liberty of drafting the opening paragraphs of such a resolution. See if you recognize the opening paragraph:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.That's a resolution worth voting for. In fact, it's the only resolution that's worth even a minute of debate in the U.S. House and Senate. That should be our benchmark. That should be our goal. That should be our only desire. Anyone wanting to disagree with that resolution should be defeated the next time they're up for re-election.
Whereas we resolve to follow those immortal words, we hereby state that:
(a) We will commit our military to defeating the terrorists wherever they are;
(b) We will endure any hardships so that our homeland will be free of future terrorist attacks;
(c) We will support our friends, the great Iraqi patriots, in their fight for true liberty;
(d) We will oppose the Iraqi patriots' enemies, including Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who are supplying the Iraqi Shi'ite militias with IEDs and training;
(e) We will do everything in our power to further a partnership between the Iraqi government so we can add a valuable ally in this war against the jihadists.
Therefore, we recommit this day to winning the global war on terrorism in every theater in the world using the military might of the United States, the righteousness of our diplomacy with freedom-loving nations and every other asset at the United State's avail.
It's just that simple.
UPDATE: I've emailed Sens. McConnell, McCain, Coleman, Cornyn, Kyl, Hatch & Hutchison this resolution. I'll keep you posted if I hear back from any or all of these senators.
Originally posted Friday, January 26, 2007, revised 27-Jan 7:46 PM
Comment 1 by Always On Watch at 27-Jan-07 08:01 AM
Anything less emboldens the enemy.
I'm sick of seeing front-page stories which give moral support to those sworn to our destruction.
Comment 2 by Mustang at 27-Jan-07 02:06 PM
This is exactly what we need in order to communicate the right message to our detractors. Unfortunately, neither the president, any of his cabinet, and certainly not any member of Congress has the moral courage to make such a commitment.
We do not have the courage of our greatest generation; more the pity for us as a nation.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-07 06:55 PM
Thanks for those comments. I'm actually emailing this resolution to Orrin Hatch, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, John McCain & other leaders who will stand with us on this resolution. I'd encourage everyone to contact their senator & representative. Tell them that this is THE RESOLUTION to support.
THIS WILL HAPPEN if we tell our leaders that it's a demandment.
Hagel Toys With Presidential Run
According to this Washington Post article,Little Chuckie Hagel is considering a run at the presidency. He might have a shot if he tries running as a Democrat but he'd get tarred and feathered if he tries running as a Republican.
His Republican colleagues regard him warily. The White House barely speaks to him. He is reviled by his party's conservative base.I hope Sen. Hagel decides to run instead of seeking re-election to the Senate. That would allow us to eliminate Hagel from the Senate while letting a real Republican run undisputed rather than having to defeat Hagel in a costly primary.
Looks as though Sen. Chuck Hagel is on a roll.
Both parties have their Iraq war contrarians. For the Democrats, it is Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose steadfast support for President Bush nearly cost him his seat last year and forced him to run as an independent. The Republican version is Hagel, a career maverick from Nebraska and the only GOP senator to call for an end to the war.
Hagel's sharp criticism of the war has placed him squarely in the mainstream of public opinion on Iraq and revived long-dormant speculation about his presidential ambitions. Hagel has been eclipsed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a leading contender for his party's presidential nomination who has vigorously endorsed the president's war policies.
But with McCain appearing increasingly isolated on the issue as public opinion has turned overwhelmingly against the war, Hagel is acting like a politician who believes his stock is climbing. In other words, he is considering a White House run.
Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.
This is proof of the old saying that senators see a president in the mirror. They should get over that because only 2 senators have ever been elected president in our nation's history: JFK and Warren Harding. Why Hagel would think of himself as presidential material is testament to his super-sized ego and nothing else. It doesn't have anything to do with his popularity inside the party.
Until now, I thought that media organizations were just trying to prop up his credibility on Iraq by mentioning him being a "potential presidential candidate." I guess they were simply telling us that he sees himself that way. the truth is that Sen. Hagel's run wouldn't last beyond 2007 because he'd underperform in the 'money primary' that he'd get the message that he isn't even a third tier candidate.
If he still ran, he'd get tarred and feathered if he showed up to a GOP BPOU anywhere in Minnesota. He certainly wouldn't get more than a dozen votes statewide because Minnesota Republicans actually want to defeat the terrorists in Iraq rather. We don't take kindly to abandoning our allies. Unlike Little Chuckie Hagel, we're determined to defeating the Iranian-financed terrorists fighting in Iraq. Unlike Little Chuckie Hagel, we take commitments seriously. Unlike Little Chuckie Hagel, we're perfectly willing to give this war all the time it needs to win.
His GOP critics fume that Hagel and his Democratic allies who sponsor resolutions opposing a troop buildup are undermining Bush at a critical moment. "I really don't understand Senator Hagel," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT). "But playing around with resolutions when we all know we've got to stay and get the job done; that doesn't make any sense. Most Republicans want us to win over there."Sen. Hatch is being kind. It isn't just that "most Republicans want us to win over there"; it's that only Hagel doesn't want us to win over there.
Hagel clearly admires Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and calls him "a star," but he doubts the two could ever team up given the vast difference in their parties' principles. "I don't know if it gets to that point, but there is a shift going on out there, and there's nothing like a war that does that," Hagel said.What's the big deal about "party principles, Sen. Hagel? It isn't like you've paid even minimal attention to the GOP's principles in ages. Frankly, I wish Hagel renounced his membership in the GOP because it'd make things alot simpler for us.
Posted Saturday, January 27, 2007 8:24 AM
No comments.
