July 18-20, 2007
Jul 18 03:17 No Comment Jul 18 07:24 Ellison Apologizes For Reichstag Comments Jul 18 08:19 Top AQI Figure Arrested Jul 18 12:51 Klobuchar Votes For Defeat, Coleman Votes for Victory Jul 19 07:56 Republican Front Group Jul 20 15:58 Back Open For Business!!! Jul 20 17:40 Dems Won't Listen To Generals; Obama Doesn't Care About Genocide
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006
No Comment
This press release from Vets for Freedom (VFF) gives a new meaning to the phrase No comment. I'll let the memo speak for itself:
Vets for Freedom expresses disappointment that veterans were not able to meet with Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle in Congress today. While many Republican Senators, including leadership, made themselves available for questions and input, interaction from Democratic leadership was noticeably absent. In spite of that, Vets for Freedom members remain committed to speaking with elected leaders on both sides of the aisle.Considering the solemnity and seriousness of the issue and the firsthand experience these veterans have with that issue, isn't it reasonable to ask why the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate refused to even listen to these veterans? Wouldn't it have been wise to hear what they had to say?
Republican leadership (and some Democrats, although not leadership) made room in their busy schedules, on very short notice, to speak with veterans. These veterans flew in on their own dime to ask Congress to give General David Petraeus the time he needs to fully implement the surge of American forces in Iraq. Veterans are very grateful and thankful for the time that these Senators took to spend with them.
Five days in advance of today's events, Vets for Freedom meeting requests-for 5 minutes-were submitted to the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House. Repeated attempts were made to contact and meet with the Democratic leadership. "In the end, they made a disappointing decision to decline meeting with veterans who have first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground" said Pete Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran and executive director of Vets for Freedom. "It is especially disappointing because Democratic leadership's misguided policy, a declaration of defeat, will lead to a national security disaster for the United States."
Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics-namely "the surge" in Iraq. Vets for Freedom is the leading voice representing troops and veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. For more information, please visit www.vetsforfreedom.org.
The fact that they didn't speak with Vets for Freedom speaks volumes as to how much political pressure the House and Senate Democratic leadership is under from the Nutroots. Let's ask some questions about why Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and Steny Hoyer wouldn't meet with VFF.
- Did this quartet choose not to meet with VFF because they weren't interested in hearing what these military veterans had to say?
- Did the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate choose not to meet with these veterans because they were ordered not to by their Nutroots fundraisers?
- Did this quartet steer clear because they had already decided upon a course of action regardless of the facts?
MoveOn.org, the anti-war group, announced plans for more than 130 events around the country to coincide with the Senate debate, part of an effort to pressure Republicans into allowing a final vote on the legislation. A candlelight vigil and rally across the street from the Capitol was prominent among them, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), attending.It's extremely disturbing that Reid, Pelosi, et al, would rather listen to MoveOn.org rather than listening to Gen. Petraeus. It's disturbing to think that Reid's and Pelosi's Iraq policy would be formed by anti-military political activists rather than by military experts and by reports from Iraq.
Earlier tonight, I listened to a portion of Tom Coburn's speech. I thought his comparison of the situation in Iraq to a cancer patient was extremely apt. He said that a patient diagnosed with cancer faces some serious choices, much like the Senate faces a serious choice with Iraq. Sen. Coburn said that the choice before the Senate was similar to the choice a cancer patient had to make. Should they start chemotherapy and radiation or should they send the patient home.
The implication to what he said was that a patient that's receiving treatment isn't guaranteed a cure but a patient that chose not to receive treatment was destined to a painful and certain death.
Continuing the surge doesn't guarantee victory, though the evidence we're getting now certainly points that direction. However, following the Democrats' plan guarantees the death of Iraqi freedom.
Another facet of Sen. Coburn's speech dealt with moral choices. Sen. Coburn asked whether a moral nation could leave Iraq, guaranteeing that the Iraqi people would live under another oppressive regime. He said he didn't think so. I concur.
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:20 AM
No comments.
Ellison Apologizes For Reichstag Comments
By now, everyone knows that Keith Ellison apologized for his comparing the Bush administration's response to 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire. In today's press, that likely means that all is forgiven amongst the Agenda Media. I, however, remain skeptical of Keith Ellison's apology. Here's why:
Anyone that co-sponsors a bill that calls for the impeachment of an administration's vice president tells me that he doesn't just disagree with that administration; he's loathe to it.
If you read H. RES 333, you'll immediately recognize that the first two articles of impeachment accuse Vice President Cheney of lying outright. The third article of impeachment accuses Vice President Cheney of "openly threaten[ing] aggression against Iran" despite "no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States..."
This isn't just an exercise in venting one's frustrations; it's an article-by-article declaration that the vice president is evil. I don't arrive at those conclusions simply out of disgust with Keith Ellison's comparing President Bush to Hitler.
I'm also factoring in Keith Ellison's statements comparing violent gangs like the Bloods with 'civil rights advocates':
"The people who govern this society," he suggested, are "incarcerating all these young black men" in some kind of retribution for the victories of '60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to "free Nelson Mandela." For the powerful, he said, the "very idea of,black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration."Anyone that thinks that violent gangsters are victims that need special civil rights protections, it isn't a stretch to think that he's got an authority complex.
In other words, it isn't unreasonable to think that Keith Ellison (a) said exactly what he meant and (b) that he's now apologizing without meaning it. Frankly, I think it's quite likely that Keith Ellison was ordered to apologize to get a PR disaster off the front page.
My opinions of Keith Ellison aren't made in a vacuum. This is someone who doesn't show the least bit of remorse after speaking at an anti-semitic organization's annual convention, something for which he still hasn't apologized.
He also hasn't apologized for his comments about cop-killer Kathleen Soliah. Instead, he's praised her:
Ellison praised Soliah for "fighting for freedom."Here's another Ellison quote about Soliah:
"We need to come together and free,all the Saras," he proclaimed.Here's one of the "Saras" that Ellison was thinking of:
Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a "revolutionary activist organization," who killed a New Jersey state trooper "execution-style at point-blank range," according to the FBI's Wanted Fugitives website.Frankly, I don't think that I'm stepping out on a limb when I say that Keith Ellison has an anti-authority attitude. I think I'm stepping on solid ground. I think Keith Ellison was instructed by Nancy Pelosi to apologize so they could get this incident in their rearview ASAP. I'll just leave you with this question:
Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She "should be considered armed and extremely dangerous," says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.
Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. "I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they're going to get Assata Shakur, they're going to get a whole lot of other people," he told the crowd. "I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it."
Can a person with a history of supporting the vilest criminals in society really feel remorse for comparing President Bush with Adolph Hitler? You know my answer.
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:30 AM
No comments.
Top AQI Figure Arrested
But the surge still isn't working according to Harry Reid. Here's the details that we have thus far:
The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter. Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.I'd expect to hear of other HVT arrests in the coming days. That seems to be the pattern when they topple a HVT.
"Al-Mashhadani is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al-Qaida in Iraq network," Bergner said. He said al-Mashhadani was a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq.This information can't help Democrats as they try making the case that we're taking our focus away from "the real war on terror" and that the war isn't winnable. You can't get much more real than capturing someone with ties to al-Qa'ida leadership outside of Iraq.
Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. "In fact, communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said. "There is a clear connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida senior leadership outside Iraq."
The degree of control and supervision between bin Laden's inner circle and the Iraq branch has been the subject of debate, with some private analysts believing the foreign-based leadership plays a minor role in day-to-day operations. Some have suggested that linking al-Qaida in Iraq to bin Laden is simply an attempt to justify the Iraq war as an extension of the global conflict that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.If sounds like they have specific proof that al-Qa'ida operatives from outside Iraq have alot of control over AQI.
Pointing to the foreign influence in al-Qaida also undermines support for the organization among nationalistically minded Iraqis, including some in insurgent groups that have broken with al-Qaida.The more you read, the more it sounds like they know alot about AQI's operations.
Bergner said that al-Mashhadani and al-Masri "co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006." "The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by al-Qaida to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people," Bergner said.
In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, with al-Masri as minister of war. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi. Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a "fictional role" created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web. "In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq," Bergner said.Al-Mashhadani's confession is the type of information that tips the scales in the public's mind. One thing that should be noted here is that Al-Mashhadani likely wasn't captured as part of Operation Arrowhead Ripper because he was captured in Mosul, which is outside of the area that OAR is covering.
Either way, this is great news for the good guys, which means it isn't a happy moment for the Democrats.
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:20 AM
No comments.
Klobuchar Votes For Defeat, Coleman Votes for Victory
The differences between Republican and Democrat can't be clearer than the picture offered by Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman. Just minutes ago, Norm Coleman voted to give victory a chance. Meanwhile, Amy Klobuchar voted to hand our troops a defeat they haven't earned.
During his speech after the vote, Harry Reid, the inept Majority Leader, said that Republican senators had voted against stopping fighting "between Sunni and Shia, between Shia and Sunni, between Shia and Shia, between Sunni and Sunni and whatever other combination you can think of." He forgot foreign al-Qa'ida vs. Iraqi Sunni and Iranian Shia vs. Iraqi Sunni.
During the debate, John McCain was his usual brilliant self. Here's the key section from Sen. McCain's official statement on Levin-Reed:
"During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating "staying the course," which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed, a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military, are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone's account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.Sen. McCain made three strong points that I'm certain will be picked up by the Beltway media and/or the Right Blogosphere. Here's the first statement that I agree with wholeheartedly:
My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating "staying the course," which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course.Even Democrats know that we've changed course. They just can't say that because to admit that Operation Arrowhead Ripper was changing facts on the ground would tell the nation that they were wrong. That's why they've resorted to the sloganeering that they accuse Republicans of. Here's another section that we must remember:
"I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend?Getting rid of Congress sounds nice in the abstract but it isn't reality. I can't imagine many things much worse than running the government via opinion polls. I'd rather listen to experts who know what they're doing. In this instance, that would be listening to Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Lynch. That's exactly the opposite approach that 'Harry Reid's Round Heel Brigades' are taking. They're essentially saying that they don't have time to listen to the military. They've essentially said that they must listen to the American people, the vast majority of whom don't have a clue about what's happening in Iraq. (Frankly, I'd be surprised if 1 in 50 newspaper readers could name the capitol of Diyala Province.)
Here's the next to the last paragraph of Sen. McCain's statement:
"I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.Amen, Sen. McCain. Amen.
At the end of the day, the difference between Sen. McCain and Sen. Reid is as wide as the difference between Sen. Coleman and Sen. Klobuchar. The best way I know how to describe the difference is to modify the book title Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats on the Iraq War is to say that Republicans are from Mars, Democrats are from a different solar system entirely.
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:52 PM
No comments.
Republican Front Group
That's what SourceWatch, a liberal front group, is calling Vets for Freedom. Here's what they're saying:
Vets for Freedom (VFF), the well-funded pro-war lobby group, is cranking-up its PR campaign on behalf of President Bush's war in Iraq with a news conference held July 17th in the US Capitol. A slate of pro-war Republican Senators including Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, along with former Democratic (now independent) Senator Joe Lieberman, all participated with Pete Hegseth and other VFF lobbyists.What makes that so rich is the fact that SourceWatch, like its parent organization PR Watch, is a front group for lefty causes. Their name sounds so official that people actually believe that they're a serious watchdog type of organization. Nothing is further from the truth. In turn, PR Watch is part of an organization called Center for Media and Democracy. Here's a list of contributors to PR Watch's cause:
Bauman Family FoundationThe Tides Foundation is well known for funding ultraliberal causes like the National Lawyers Guild, which in turn funded the legal defense of Omar Abdel Rahman. That's the radical agenda of just one of the PR Watch benefactors.
CarEth Foundation
Carolyn Foundation
Changing Horizons Charitable Trust
CS Fund
Deer Creek Foundation
Educational Foundation of America
Ettinger Foundation
Foundation for Deep Ecology
Funding Exchange
Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund
Grodzins Fund
HKH Foundation
Litowitz Foundation
Marisla Foundation
Mostyn Foundation
Park Foundation
Rockefeller Associates
Rockefeller Family Foundation
Rockwood Fund
Stern Family Fund
Schumann Center for Media and Democracy
Sunlight Foundation
Threshold Foundation
Tides Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation
Wallace Global Fund
Winslow Foundation
(FYI- The Tides Foundation gets significant funding from Theresa Heinz-Kerry, wife of John Kerry.)
That's why I found it so amusing to hear them call VFF a "Republican front group." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The good news is that Kathy Kersten is on the job to tell the real story behind VFF:
This week, the U.S. Capitol was the scene of a hard-fought battle over America's future role in Iraq. Amid skirmishes between senators and anti-war activists over various measures to withdraw congressional support for the war, a platoon of combat-tested veterans from an organization called Vets for Freedom pressed lawmakers to finish the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan.I've had a couple of phone conversations with Mr. Hegseth. I don't know whether he's a Republican or Democrat. Frankly, it isn't that important at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a Republican because most soldiers, unlike the highest officers, vote Republican. It's been that way at the presidential level at least back to Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign.
The group's leader, Pete Hegseth, 27, grew up in Forest Lake. He sees the action on Capitol Hill as a continuation of the fighting he did in Baghdad and Samarra.
"This is ultimately a communications war, a battle fought in the media, and our enemy understands that," Hegseth said. "America's safety depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Iraq. We've got to give the troop surge and the new counterinsurgency tactics time to work."
That hardly qualifies an organization to be called a "Republican front group."
I suspect SourceWatch's mission in this is to discredit VFF before they assert their influence into the Democrats' unilateral defeat debate. I suspect that ending the war is so important to SourceWatch/PR Watch/CMD that they'll employ any tactics to achieve their goal. After reading this profile of the CarEth Foundation, one of the contributors to SourceWatch, there won't be any doubt that pacifism is at the heart of SourceWatch's mission:
MissionTalk about a group seeking to implement utopian values on "the world." That's straight out of the Democrats' pacifist wing's handbook. And they're calling Vets for Freedom a Republican front group?CarEth Foundation seeks to promote a compassionate world of enduring and just peace with social, economic, and political equality for all.Goals1. Promote the creation of a global community of shared values.
2. Empower people who have been excluded from full participation and promote genuine democracy in the United States.
3. Promote peaceful conflict resolution and the elimination of the root causes of conflict.
The most important thing you can know about VFF is that they're veterans who've served with distinction in the hottest of Iraqi hotspots. While SoureWatch and other organizations approach things from an ideological perspective, VFF's directors approach Iraq from a 'real life experience' perspective. Here's part of VFF's real life experience:
But Hegseth said he learned most from his stint as a civil-military operations officer in Samarra, terrorists blew up the city's famous Golden Mosque on his second day on duty there.Reading that paragraph certainly doesn't sound like he's blinded to the mistakes that the Bush administration must take responsibility for. It sounds like he's open and blunt about the Bush administration's failures. It's also apparent that VFF has seen the many successes that the military has played a part in. That sounds more like they're approaching things from a realist perspective. Here's what Mr. Hegseth says about Gen. Petraeus' plan:
In Samarra, I saw firsthand how the right strategy can lead to progress," he said. "My battalion's relationship with one brave Iraqi leader almost single-handedly dismantled the local insurgency. As we earned his trust, he began funneling intelligence to us. We'd get a call at 2:00 a.m.: 'We know where the guys you are looking for are.' Unfortunately, our conventional tactics did not reinforce these gains."
Hegseth returned home in July 2006, proud of the accomplishments of American soldiers but frustrated by a strategy that emphasized conventional tactics in an unconventional war. Then in January 2007, Gen. David Petraeus took the reins in Iraq. "Petraeus literally wrote the military manual on counterinsurgency," Hegseth said. "We've got the makings of a winning strategy. Now we've got to give it time to succeed."If VFF is a "Republican front group", they certainly aren't viewing Iraq through rose-colored glasses. I don't think that frustrated and proud are words that front groups would use in spinning the war.
At the end of the day, it's apparent that al-Qa'ida and the insurgents aren't the only groups that play the media game in hopes of ending the war. Thank God groups like VFF and men like Peter Hegseth are fighting the good fight with Congress just like they fought the good fight in Iraq.
Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:25 AM
No comments.
Back Open For Business!!!
I'm pleased to announce that LFR is back open for business. It's been a frustrating 24 hours but it's quickly fading into my rearview. Now it's time to refocus the spotlight on career corruption profiteers like John Murtha, William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson and Ted Kennedy.
Get ready for some serious ripping. If you thought I was hounddogging them before, you ain't seen nothing yet. I'm now a man on a mission with those profiteers squarely in my sights.
Before I return to ripping & ridiculing Democrats, I'd like to thank Cindy from Ladies Logic, Leo Pusateri from Psycmeistr's Ice Palace! & Captain Ed from Captains Quarters for their support. MOBsters are some of the finest people around. They rally to a cause without hesitation. For that, I'm most grateful.
By the way, if you aren't reading my MOBster friends, then you're missing out on some of the finest blogging out there. They don't get the traffic that Captain Ed or Powerline get but the quality of their product is outstanding. To not make them part of your daily reading is a mistake.
Posted Friday, July 20, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 20-Jul-07 07:16 PM
WOOHOO!!!! I can get my LFR fix again.
Glad to see the technical difficulties are done Gary. Now, get busy ripping the corruption!
LL
Dems Won't Listen To Generals; Obama Doesn't Care About Genocide
Democrats are showing that they're bent on declaring defeat in Iraq whether it means ignoring the generals on the ground or turning their backs on the genocide that would follow our pullout.
Now it's safe to say that the Democrat Party is the Anti-First Amendment Party and the Pro-Genocide Party. That makes for an impressive party platform. NOT. First, let's take a look at Barack Obama's declaration:
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.Talk about saying something utterly demoralizing to our allies. Forget about Obama not being ready for primetime. If that's how he'd treat our allies, I'd argue that he isn't ready for the Late, Late Late Show. Obama's statement tells our allies that America shouldn't be trusted to hold up its part of the bargain if opinion polls head south. That's simply inexcusable.
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now-where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife-which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
This casts the Democrats as the 'Defeat At All Costs Party.'
There was a time when Democrats said that Bush needed to listen to the generals more. That's gone by the wayside, too, now that the generals on the ground are saying that the surge is working. Here's what Joe Biden told Chris Matthews in January, 2007:
I had five...four generals before me this morning on Foreign Relations, Chris, people you know, from Barry McCaffrey to General Odom to General (inaudible). These are commandants of the Marine Corps, et cetera.In other words, Joe Biden was listening to generals who weren't familiar with the specifics on the ground in Baghdad but he and other Democrats refuse to listen to the generals on the ground in Baghdad, Ramadi and Baqouba now:
And to a person...to a person...they pointed out that there is...and including the general who supports the surge, says we're not going and supporting the Iraqis. We're going to be in the lead. In a city of six-plus million people, we're going to have young men in the middle of a civil war and women knocking on doors? This is absolutely, absolutely the wrong thing to do.
The top commanders in Iraq and the American ambassador to Baghdad used video links with Washington on Thursday to appeal for more time, both to allow for success on the ground and to more fully assess if the new strategy is making gains.Now that the political heat is getting ratcheted up, a bipartisan show of cowardice is also being ratcheted up. I expect Democrats to act like a Frenchman but it's shameful that people like Richard Lugar and John Warner have joined them in undercutting Gen. Petraeus and President Bush. That simply isn't acceptable but it will be remembered when we get fundraising letters asking for cash for the NRSC.
Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters that while he was not asking to delay a mid-September assessment of the new military strategy that Congress has required, it would take "at least until November" to judge with confidence whether the strategy was working.
Friday, he issued a statement reiterating that he was not asking to delay the September assessment. "There is no intention to push our reporting requirement beyond September. Nothing I said yesterday should be interpreted to suggest otherwise," he said. "My reference to November was simply suggesting that as we go forward beyond September, we will gain more understanding of trends."
But the appeals by the commanders and the ambassador, in three videoconferences on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon, were met by stern rebukes from lawmakers of both parties.
The sessions appeared aimed in part at conveying that the administration was not planning a major strategy shift in September that would begin reducing the American troop presence, even if benchmarks set by Congress to measure Iraq's progress were not achieved.
And we'll certainly remind the world that Democrats stated loudly, consistently and unequivocally that they didn't care about an Iraqi genocide upon our pulling out.
The American people don't like the Iraq war but they hate defeatist politicians. We'll remind them this fall when Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify as to the identifiable and undeniable progress being made in chasing AQI out of its sanctuaries in cities like Ramadi and Baqouba and in provinces like Anbar and Diyala.
Posted Friday, July 20, 2007 5:40 PM
No comments.
