September 12, 2007
Sep 12 02:39 Pelosi Throws a Hissy Fit Sep 12 03:48 Good Job, Sen. Coleman Sep 12 04:15 Special Session Is History Sep 12 11:02 Largest, Fastest Flood Relief in History Sep 12 14:14 Olson For AG? Sep 12 17:34 THAT'S Objective Reporting???
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Pelosi Throws a Hissy Fit
After Democratic congressional leaders met with President Bush, Nancy Pelosi issued this press release:
"President Bush's policy announced by General Petraeus is a path to 10 more years of war in Iraq. General Petraeus' testimony to Congress drew a bright line: redeployment is not an option; endless war in Iraq is the Administration's only option.This is the most misleading statement I've ever seen. Considering that Ms. Pelosi issued it, I can't say that I'm surprised. Notice how the inference of the first paragraph is that President Bush plans on fighting in Iraq for a decade. That's a patently absurd statement since President Bush will be out of office in 18 months.
"Under the Bush plan, 130,000 Americans will remain in harm's way in Iraq at a cost of hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer dollars. This status quo policy was rejected by General James Jones, whose recent report stated that significant force reductions are possible and that we must reduce our military footprint in Iraq.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change.
"The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."
Based on the content of this statement, I can't conclude anything other than the fact that that she's a bald-faced liar. I watched the testimony Tuesday. Gen. Petraeus said that the US military footprint in Iraq likely will drop to 130,000 by this time next year, with more troop withdrawals as conditions improve. I find it insulting to hear her say that President Bush plans on keeping that many troops in Iraq considering the fact that he'll be out of office in another 16 months.
Another point where Ms. Pelosi is telling whoppers is in her saying that President Bush's veto pen is preventing "the redeployment of our troops..." What she's really saying is that Congress doesn't want to do what it has the power to do: end funding for the war. The surest way to mandate the redeployment of troops is for the House to not take up the next Iraq supplemental that President Bush sends up. If the money isn't appropriated, the war screeches to a halt.
Another absurd statement is that we're currently employing a "status quo policy." It's insulting to us that she wants people to believe that Sunni sheikhs in Anbar turning on AQI terrorists is part of a status quo policy. It's equally insulting that she'd try convincing us that aggressively attacking Sadr's militias south of Iraq is part of a status quo policy.
The truth is that Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to admit that there has been a change of plans in Iraq. She won't call it a change of policy because it isn't the type of policy change that she was pushing.
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:40 AM
No comments.
Good Job, Sen. Coleman
This evening, I watched C-SPAN's repeat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. I'm especially impressed with the questions that Sen. Coleman asked Amb. Crocker. During his allotted time, Sen. Coleman talked about being in Ramadi and talking with the mayor. He related that the mayor of Ramadi talked about eventually putting in a resort. Norm said that that got his interest because he used to like that part of being a mayor himself.
Sen. Coleman's face noticeably lit up when he started talking about the remarkable progress that's been made in Ramadi. Remember that it wasn't that long ago that AQI terrorists had called Ramadi part of the "Islamic State of Iraq." Today, it's a city that's being rebuilt because it's essentially terrorist-free.
I've also got to give Norm credit for explaining his pro-victory position on Iraq in this press release:
The testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker today shed new light on the political and military situation in Iraq. The General brought clear and definitive evidence that militarily the surge in Iraq is indeed working. I share General Petraeus' view that we must continue the surge while training Iraqi Security Forces to ensure al-Qaeda does not undo our military progress, and believe his assessment that the "surge" troops may be home by next July underscores the fact that progress is being made, and that America's commitment, while long-term, is not open-ended.I'm perfectly comfortable with Sen. Coleman's explanation. It's impossible to say that he isn't pro victory after reading his statement. It's also clear that he's thought things through. He knows that we need the Iraqi government to speed up the pace on the political front. Sen. Coleman rightly recognizes the need for a more muscular diplomatic effort within the region, too.
Despite the sense of optimism brought by the progress of our military, it's clear the Iraqi government has failed to meet the benchmarks needed to achieve political reconciliation. In his testimony Ambassador Crocker maintained that political progress is being made, albeit slowly. However, we can no longer be satisfied by the slow pace at which Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to meet these objectives. Without political reconciliation, long term stability in Iraq cannot begin to take hold.
For this reason, I am pleased that General Petraeus plans to make an initial troop reduction of about 5,000 troops by Christmas. As I have previously noted, such a reduction should send a strong message to the Iraqi leadership that it must do its part to advance political reconciliation immediately. We must also implement a diplomatic surge, particularly with Sunni Arab nations in the region who can work with Iraqi Sunni areas to aid our efforts in fighting al-Qaeda. The United Nations must also play a greater role in order to curb Iran's efforts to destabilize Iraq.
The reality is that our national security interests demand that we have a long term presence in the region, but not caught in the crosshairs on sectarian violence. Our mission must change, with the ultimate goal of having the Iraqis assume responsibility for their security and political environment.
All in all, I'd say it's a very sensible, defensible position to take. I certainly won't hesitate about working hard to get Norm re-elected.
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:48 AM
No comments.
Special Session Is History
According to this Strib article, Gov. Pawlenty has signed the flood relief bill that the Minnesota Legislature passed early this morning. Here's a few of the details:
Working past midnight Tuesday and into this morning in an unusual special session, the Legislature passed a $157 million disaster relief bill for flood-ravaged southeastern Minnesota.Conservatives can now breath a little deeper now that that legislation is signed into law. That doesn't mean that there won't be some passionate battles starting this February. This promises to be one of the most highly-contested sessions in years, with the DFL, especially Steve Murphy, thinking that they'll ram a tax increase-laden Transportation bill down Gov. Pawlenty's throat. They've got another think coming on that.
The House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the legislation early today, more than seven hours after the special session started, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed it shortly before 3 a.m.
Citing a Minnesota Department of Transportation study, Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said the gap between what the state is spending and what it needs to meet performance standards is about $2.4 billion a year for the next six years. A 5-cent gas tax increase would raise an estimated $162 million a year.I've said it before & I'll say it again: I pray that the DFL tries selling this in a statewide campaign. In fact, I hope they're given tons of air time in St. Cloud, Alexandria, Willmar, Annandale & other places like that. There's a reason why 57 percent of Minnesotans don't want a gas tax increase. There's a reason why an additional 18 percent of Minnesotans don't want a gas tax increase of more than a nickel a gallon.
"The governor is talking about a 5 percent solution to the problem," Murphy said. (Actually, a 5-cent tax would plug 6.75 percent of the gap.) "I'm not interested in negotiating for a 5 percent solution."
So, Murphy and other members of the House and Senate transportation committees, "mostly Democrats but some Republicans," he said, are preparing to take a traveling show to each of the state's county seats to tell citizens about Minnesota's transportation needs.
I further hope that Gov. Pawlenty & the House GOP leadership lays out their vision of meeting Minnesota's transportation needs without raising people's. It's time that people learned that Gov. Pawlenty had a plan this session that called for a healthy transportation budget without raising taxes.
I also hope that Gov. Pawlenty holds more press conferences this year to raise the visibility of GOP proposals. This year, the DFL essentially ignored Gov. Pawlenty's property tax relief plan & his transportation proposal. It's time the DFL paid a price for their arrogance.
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:15 AM
No comments.
Largest, Fastest Flood Relief in History
That's the headline to this article. The headline is accurate but it doesn't tell the entire story. I've received reports from several legislators & staffers that time wasn't managed well once the special session was gaveled to a start. I was also told that Phyllis Kahn wanted to adjourn the special session until Oct. 15. Eventually, Tony Sertich moved to adjourn the special session Sine Die, thereby shutting down the special session.
That aside, the Legislature got their work done, which is the most important thing. DFL legislators tried tacking other things onto the package but weren't allowed to.
The $218 million bill also included $55 million for rebuilding the Interstate 35W bridge and $5.3 million in disaster relief for Browns Valley, Crookston and other areas affected by earlier floods. The legislation passed 130 to 0 in the House and 62 to 1 in the Senate.Appropriating $55 million for rebuilding the I-35W bridge means that all other legislation can wait until the Legislature re-opens on Feb. 12, 2008.
Pawlenty had come under criticism for not calling a special session earlier. Indeed, the weekly Rushford newspaper, in a recent headline, chided Pawlenty for what it considered his slow response to the flooding by referring to the disaster as "Pawlenty's Katrina." But Pawlenty said the bill represents the largest and fastest disaster relief legislation in the state's history.Frankly, the Rushford newspaper's criticism sounds like a political hit piece. The last couple of special sessions came 3-4 months after the flooding had stopped.
It's also a stretch to say this:
Acting with uncommon haste, the Legislature rushed passage of a $157 million package of relief funding to flood-ravaged southeastern Minnesota in a one-day special session that concluded this morning.Based on the shenanigans that I heard about, I wouldn't characterize the special session as "acting with uncommon haste." They got the job done but time wasn't particularly well-managed.
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:02 AM
No comments.
Olson For AG?
That's what it looks like according to Captain Ed. Already, Chuck Schumer is complaining about Olson, saying that he wouldn't show up on anyone's list of consensus candidates for the job:
"Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn't appear on that list," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who led the Judiciary Committee effort to remove Mr. Gonzales. "My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable."The biggest reason why Ted Olson wouldn't be on such a list is because Democrats don't like the fact that Olson was part of then Gov. Bush's legal team during the Florida recount debacle. It isn't based on qualifications because everywhere he's gone, Ted Olson has been a brilliant attorney. Ted Olson has had a distinguished career, including arguing cases before the Supreme Court. Simply put, he's eminently qualified to be our next AG.
I can't picture the Democrats wanting to pick a fight on this one, even though PFAW and other ultra-liberal organizations will want them to. I'm betting that they'll want to save their ammunition for a Supreme Court nominee.
Personally, I'd love seeing the Olson confirmation hearings. He'd absolutely school Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden. I'd bet it'd make for better TV than yesterday's Petraeus Report.
UPDATE: According to this Reuters article, Harry Reid has announced that Ted Olson won't get confirmed by the Senate:
Reid declared: "Ted Olson will not be confirmed" by the Senate. "He's a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan," Reid told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.That's the best argument against Ted Olson that Reid can make? He's partisan??? I'd challenge Sen. Reid to name someone in Washington who isn't partisan. Furthermore, it's pathetic to see that Sen. Reid doesn't mention anything about Ted Olson's qualifications. I'd doubt that Sen. Reid doesn't like partisanship. I suspect that he simply doesn't like conservative partisans, especially if they're smarter than him.
If Sen. Reid and Sen. Schumer insist on ruling out Ted Olson as the potential next attorney general, then I call on President Bush to make Ted Olson the attorney general via recess appointment.
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:13 PM
No comments.
THAT'S Objective Reporting???
Everyone that's capable of thinking knows that the various wire services are hopelessly liberal. Still, it isn't often that you see examples like this:
Bush held out the promise for such a change, but it is not materializing, Reid said.Notice that the AP wasn't quoting Sen. Reid when they said they didn't know if "they had the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP stalling efforts..." That's the AP's editorial comment. I'd love asking AP reporter Ann Flaherty why she chose to characterize the GOP's effort to support our commander-in-chief a stalling tactic. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to say that it wasn't certain if Democrats could muster up the 60 votes needed to block the GOP filibuster?
Reid wasn't specific about what amendments Democrats would offer, or whether they had the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP stalling efforts and to prevail.
Besides Ms. Flaherty's unwarranted editorializing, there's the daily declaration that Sen. Reid doesn't think that President Bush's plan declares defeat fast enough:
Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday rejected the call by the top U.S. general in Iraq for a reduction of up to 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by next summer, saying it does not go far enough.It's getting annoying listening to Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi telling us that the surge isn't a change of direction. They're doing their best to ignore the information that everyone is reading and talking about. It's as if they didn't pay attention to anything that Gen. Petraeus said during his testimony.
"This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV). Reid said the recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, expected to be embraced on Thursday by President Bush in a speech to the nation, "is neither a drawdown or a change in mission that we need. His plan is just more of the same."
Clearly, though, this week's testimony by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker has shifted the debate inside the Beltway. It's obvious that Reid and Pelosi are talking from a weakened position. Here's what Peter Wehner thinks of Gen. Petraeus' testimony:
General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, testifying before the House and the Senate during the last two days, did what many people thought was impossible: They reset the Washington clock. These good men, by what they have achieved in Iraq and by the force and power of their testimonies, have recast the terms of the debate. They will now have until next summer to build on their successes, which in turn could eventually lead to a decent outcome in Iraq.I wholeheartedly agree. I wish I could say that I'm surprised but I can't. I shouldn't be that surprised since I predicted this in August:
The bad news for anti-war Democrats is that more military successes will make it into the public discussion between now and Gen. Petraeus' and Amb. Crocker's reports in mid-September. The worse news for anti-war Democrats is that Gen. Petraeus' report will talk about the multitude of successes Operation Arrowhead Ripper has had. When the American people hear that the military campaign is making significant progress in killing AQI terrorists and that sectarian casualties have dropped significantly, then their opinions will change.I paid attention to the reports coming from Iraq this summer. I made certain that I checked websites like Vets for Freedom, Victory Caucus, Stars & Stripes and BlackAnthem.com for the latest news from Iraq. In so doing, I learned that reconciliation meetings were held in Diyala Province. I learned about how the sheikhs had turned against AQI terrorists in Ramadi and throughout al-Anbar Province.
That's why this week's testimony wasn't a surprise. In fact, I can't say that Sen. Reid's reaction was surprising either. They've based their 2008 election strategy on bad news from Iraq. If conditions in Iraq improve, Hillary will have to adopt yet another stance on the war. If she does that, she'll look as confused as a chameleon on a plaid background.
Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are a perfect pair. Neither of them has any core beliefs other than that they're opposed to anything that President Bush says or does.
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:35 PM
No comments.
