September 14-16, 2007
Sep 14 01:05 Democrats Plan for Withdrawal, Not Victory Sep 14 02:56 Kohl, Klobuchar Have Same Speechwriter? Sep 14 09:12 Ellison Changes Direction On Iraq Sep 14 10:28 Schumer Negotiating With DoJ, Reid Irresponsive Sep 14 12:22 Will Assassination Of Sunni Sheikh Doom AQI? Sep 15 01:23 Hillary vs. Rudy Sep 15 23:14 Stay the Course, Continue the Presence, Increase Our Forces Sep 16 00:29 Starving Transportation the DFL Way Sep 16 02:25 How Much Is Enough?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Democrats Plan for Withdrawal, Not Victory
That isn't an opinion, it's a statement of fact. If you want proof, I've got tons of it. Let's start with Jack Reed's 'rebuttal' of President Bush's speech:
Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.The truth is that Jack Reed didn't hear a "convincing rationale to continue" the war because he'd made up his mind months ago. In fact, it isn't a stretch to say that he made up his mind in 2002 when he voted against authorizing the President to take military action in Iraq.
As for Sen. Reed's claim that President Bush didn't provide a convincing rationale for continuing the war, what doesn't he think this paragraph provides that rationale?
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.Why doesn't Sen. Reed think that breaking the terrorists' backs in Iraq is a worthy mission? Why doesn't Sen. Reed think that preventing state sponsors of terrorism like Iran from dominating the Middle East is a worthwhile mission? Doesn't Sen. Reed think that keeping our word with a freedom-loving ally is worthwhile?
When Sen. Reed wasn't mischaracterizing President Bush's plan for defeating the terrorists, he was mischaracterizing Gen. Petraeus' testimony:
Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq's fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.Sen. Reed knows that that's nonsense. You must defeat the enemies of the elected Iraqi government before you can have longlasting political progress . That means killing off the terrorists. If you don't do that, the government can't operate and the civilians have to live in fear, just like they did when Saddam was ruler.
I watched most of Gen. Petraeus' testimony. He made it especially clear that the military had to take action in Ramadi before reconstruction could start. That was imperative because Ramadi was a terrorist stronghold. Notice that I said was. Ramadi is now well on the path to rebuilding. During his allotted time, Sen. Norm Coleman, my senator, spoke excitedly about how the Ramadi mayor told him about eventually building a resort area.
By the way, doesn't the thought of building a luxury resort in Ramadi speaks volumes about how much progress has been made in Anbar Province?
It was a mere year ago that so-called military experts wrote off Anbar as being a permanent AQI stronghold and base. I'd say that it's nothing short of amazing that Anbar, especially Ramadi, went from being AQI's base of operations to being a rebuilding sectarian city.
Sen. Reed isn't the only Democratic pessimist who's demanding troop withdrawals. Earlier today, I wrote about Sen. Obama's speech in Clinton, IA, which he touted as a major foreign policy speech. Here's the main point he made in the speech:
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was ," Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.Sen. Obama must be pandering to his MoveOn.org contributors because elected officials can't be foolish enough to think that "there never was" a military solution to Iraq's problems. Again, where's the proof that Sen. Obama thinks that the American military can't defeat the terrorists? How would he respond to this portion of President Bush's speech?
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year,now," the Illinois senator was to say.
Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.Here's what happened in AQI's former stronghold:
To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.
-
Sunni sheikhs worked with the Iraqi military and the multinational forces to drive out terrorists.
- Anbar citizens now provide intel on terrorist hideouts.
- Sunnis are joining the military and police instead of joining the insurgents.
- The economy is growing.
Most importantly, the changes that've taken hold in Anbar are sustainable, long-lasting reforms because the citizens have rejected AQI's brutality.
Here's how other Democratic presidential candidates reacted:
DEMOCRATIC SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN OF DELAWARE:Let me repeat what I said earlier: What's obviously missing is the belief that the American military can defeat terrorists. That's what the Democrats stand for. If the Democrat's name isn't Joe Lieberman, they don't believe that victory is possible. Shame on them.
"This is bizarre. It's all about handing the war off to the next president. It's not about solving any problems...All this is is a continuation of a God-awful failed policy...There is no strategy here."
DEMOCRATIC SEN. HILLARY CLINTON OF NEW YORK:
"What the president told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home."
FORMER DEMOCRATIC SEN. JOHN EDWARDS OF NORTH CAROLINA:
"Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had: more time, more troops, and more war...Now, after General (David) Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won't."
Despite all the information that conditions have dramatically changed in Al-Anbar, Democrats insist that President Bush refuses to change strategies. Despite all the proof that Iraqis turned against the terrorists because President Bush wouldn't abandon America's ally when the going got tough, Democrats insist that there isn't a compelling reason to stay in Iraq. Despite all the proof that Iran wants to establish a regionwide hegemony the minute America abandons Iraq, Democrats think that leaving is the right thing to do.
Finally, let's contrast the Democrats' defeatism against what Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain said:
FORMER REPUBLICAN SEN. FRED THOMPSON OF TENNESSEE:I especially love Fred Thompson's statement because it perfectly characterizes the Democrats' top priority. They've spent their time complaining about President Bush's "failed strategy" but not putting forward a plan to defeat the terrorists in Iraq.
"Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight."
FORMER REPUBLICAN NEW YORK MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI:
"The mission in Iraq is safety and security in Iraq, and of course the end purpose of that is so we can have an ally against Islamic terrorism. We can be successful in that. I don't see the idea of running out, withdrawing and retreating."
REPUBLICAN SEN. JOHN MCCAIN OF ARIZONA:
"I think what I find interesting is the lack of appreciation of success on the part of many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, success that we have achieved in a relatively short period of time after four years of failure under the (then Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld doctrine, strategy, which was a disaster."
They didn't put forward such a plan because it would've eliminated the biggest source of their campaign contributions.
Originally posted Friday, September 14, 2007, revised 29-Sep 12:40 PM
Comment 1 by C. L. Wilson at 16-Nov-07 01:55 PM
I love your post! Great analysis. I've blogged about a great example of the progress we're making in Iraq at http://brelevant.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-evidence-that-were-winning-in-iraq.html.
Kohl, Klobuchar Have Same Speechwriter?
After reading this article, you'd almost think that Herb Kohl and Amy Klobuchar have the same speechwriter. Here's Kohl's reaction to President Bush's speech:
"I'm disappointed that the president's strategy for Iraq appears to continue down the same dead-end road. The draw down will, in effect, bring us back to where we started."Here's Klobuchar's statement:
"The President's withdrawal plan bring us right back where we started." Meanwhile, she adds, "the Iraqi government continues to fail to meet the basic benchmarks for political progress."What Kohl and Klobuchar aren't admitting is that things are different in Iraq. If and when our troop levels return to the 130,000 level, they will have eliminated most of the AQI terrorists in Ramadi, Baqouba and other former AQI strongholds. That's part of Harry Reid's and MoveOn.org's strategy.
The thing is that they'd better hope that conditions don't continue to improve. If the security continues to improve, Democrats will be in a bad position for 2008. Frankly, with Gen. Petraeus executing his plan, I'm expecting more improvement between now and his next report in February.
It's getting annoying to hear one Democrat after another spew MoveOn.org's talking points. It's bad enough to endure a herd of mindless politicians. It's worse when that herd of mindless politicians don't have the fortitude to stand up to MoveOn.org, aka their 'crazy uncle in the attic'.
I've said for quite awhile that Amy Klobuchar didn't have a mind of her own. Nine months into her first term, I still have that opinion. In fact, I can't honestly say that she's an upgrade over Mark Dayton. I didn't think that possible considering how pathetic Dayton was but that's where the evidence takes me.
Posted Friday, September 14, 2007 2:57 AM
No comments.
Ellison Changes Direction On Iraq
In July, I posted an article that I titled " Miracles Do Happen ", which seemed appropriate considering it focused on Keith Ellison's gushing report on how the US military was interacting with Iraqi Muslims. I should've known it was too good to last. Now that he's back stateside, Rep. Ellison's tune has changed.
Dramatically.
Here's what Ellison said in July:
Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."Here's what Rep. Ellison said this week about the Surge:
There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.
"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."
Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.
"The stated mission of the so-called surge was to buy needed time and space for the Iraqi government to more toward reconciliation. This has not occurred and reconciliation seems further away than ever. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office, eleven of the eighteen legislative, security and economic benchmarks set down that would define the success of the surge's mission have not been met. Key legislation has not been passed; violence remains high; and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," Ellison stated.In July, Ellison spoke of how the US and Iraqi military had run AQI out of Ramadi, which everyone thinks is a success story. Now he says that the surge has failed. When Rep. Ellison said that "reconciliation seems further away than ever", does that mean that he didn't mean it when he said "The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership"?
"Instead, the military success stories we heard today from the Bush Administration, delivered by General Petraeus, were selective at best, and based on a massive concentration of American troops in those particular areas," Ellison stated.
"The test of success of this surge cannot be whether the U.S. military can exert concentrated force in order to pacify an area in Iraq. That has never been in doubt. The test is whether peace can be sustained by Iraqis. Relative calm in the Al-Anbar province is due to local Iraqi leaders deciding to take their country back and U.S. forces supporting that effort through reconstruction and other means. The U.S. role must be to encourage reconciliation and reconstruction that employs Iraqis. There's no getting around that. Also, the U.S. must be in dialogue with surrounding nations like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States to promote stability in Iraq and address the burgeoning refugee crisis in the region," Ellison elaborated.
"The fact of the matter is this has been the bloodiest summer of the war for U.S. soldiers. Every month in 2007 has seen more U.S. military casualties than the same month in 2006. Iraqi deaths due to sectarian violence have doubled this year; and there has been absolutely no political progress," Ellison stated.
"I remain more convinced than ever that it is time to get our troops safely home from Iraq now. The longer we stay the more we become the focal point, and the al-Maliki government grows more dependent. The Iraqis themselves have got to want to bring stability back to their own country, with the support of countries from the region," Ellison said.
"Americans believe it was a mistake to get into this war, and they were right. Americans believe the Iraqi government is not doing enough to bring stability to their own country, and they are even more right. The time has come to say enough is enough, enough young Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice, or been disabled, and the drain on our treasury must end. Contrary to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's testimony, there's no end in sight. Congress must act to end this senseless war now," Ellison concluded.
How can Rep. Ellison say that reconciliation seems farther away than ever when the Iraqi military is working with tribal and religious leadership in Ramadi? How can Ellison now say that "there's no end in sight" only six weeks after seeing the dramatic transformation in Ramadi?
Frankly, Rep. Ellison hasn't shown me that he's a principled man. It's obvious that he was impressed when he was walking the streets of Ramadi. It's equally obvious that Rep. Ellison's stateside statements are controlled by his extreme left wing benefactors and the House liberal 'leadership'.
Finally, I ask one simple question: Is Rep. Ellison capable of thinking things through, reaching an opinion, then sticking with it? If he's capable of that, I haven't seen proof of it.
Posted Friday, September 14, 2007 9:12 AM
No comments.
Schumer Negotiating With DoJ, Reid Irresponsive
This morning, I called Sen. Schumer's office to find out if he had a list of candidates who would be confirmable as the next US Attorney General. I called because he's quoted on the subject of Ted Olson's possible nomination. Here's that quote:
"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."When I reached Sen. Schumer's office, Schumer's staffer told me that Sen. Schumer had a list , which he hadn't published because "he's still negotiating with DoJ" on the matter.
That seemed strange considering the response I got when I called Harry Reid's office. I first called Reid's office two days ago after I read a quote from Sen. Reid about Ted Olson's possible nomination to be the next US AG. Sen. Here's what Reid is quoted as saying:
"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."Two days later, he still hadn't responded so I called Reid's Washington, DC office again. I told Reid's staffer that I hadn't received a reply to my question.
He immediately asked where I was calling from so I told him I'm from Minnesota. He asked if I'd called my senators. I told him that I hadn't because they hadn't been quoted on the subject. I told him that I was asking Sen. Reid because he was quoted by Reuters.
The gentleman then said that I should check Sen. Reid's website periodically to see if Sen. Reid puts out a statement on the subject. I told him that I'd do that but I also said that it's strange for Sen. Reid to say that they'll rule out partisans for the job but then not have someone in mind that would fit their criteria.
Finally, the gentleman said "Good luck in finding out the information you're looking for." What a boneheaded statement that is. I want Sen. Reid's reaction to his statement. I call his office for that reaction but they won't answer my question. Then they wish me luck in finding out the information that they won't give me.
Several things are apparent from my call. The first thing that became apparent is that this staffer is as evasive as his boss is. Another thing that's apparent is that Reid doesn't have anyone in mind that fits his demands. His declaration that Ted Olson wouldn't get confirmed because he's too partisan was made to tell President Bush not to nominate Ted Olson.
This is an attempt by Sen. Reid to get the Bush administration to negotiate against itself. I'd be surprised if President Bush fell for that age-old ploy.
In light of this information, isn't it a bit strange that Sen. Reid wouldn't have anyone in mind when one of his lieutenants is negotiating with DoJ on who would be confirmable?
Frankly, the information from Reid's office doesn't sound credible.
Posted Friday, September 14, 2007 10:31 AM
No comments.
Will Assassination Of Sunni Sheikh Doom AQI?
It certainly looks that way based on their initial response. AJ Strata thinks that this might be the turning point in the war. Let's certainly hope so. Here's what VOA is reporting on Sunni reaction to the assassination of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha:
Sunni Arab mourners in western Iraq have called for revenge against al-Qaida at the funeral of Sunni tribal council leader Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who was killed in a roadside bomb blast near his home Thursday.Here's how the Australian is reporting Abu Risha's assassination:
Scores of Iraqi police and U.S. military vehicles lined the route of the funeral procession from the slain Sunni leader's home in Ramadi to the burial grounds Friday.
Ahmed Abu Reesha, brother of the slain tribal chief, said yesterday: "We blame al-Qa'ida and we are going to continue our fight and avenge his death."The people of Anbar Province are extremely upset that AQI assassinated their leader. It doesn't sound like they're likely to turn the other cheek on this one. In fact, it sounds like AQI's murderous actions are leading to its demise.
Sheik Ahmed Abu Reesha was elected new leader of the Anbar Awakening Conference, the tribal coalition which has joined forces with US troops in fighting the Islamist group in the province.
Thousands of people gathered to attend the funeral yesterday.
AQI initially flourished but that changed when Al-Zarqawi started killing Sunnis. Sunnis' hatred for AQI deepened when AQI imposed Sharia law in Anbar Province, Diyala Province, Ramadi and Baqouba. Now AQI's desperate attempt to hold onto power is defined by their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the man considered to be the leader of the Anbar Awakening.
Considering the help AQI is giving in stiffening Iraqi resolve, it's puzzling to me why Democrats think that national reconciliation isn't possible. It's that much more puzzling when you consider Maliki's response:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was represented by National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, who condemned the killing. "It is a national Iraqi disaster. What Abu Reesha did for Iraq, no single man has done in the country's history," Mr Rubaie told the mourners.Isn't it logical to think that Sunnis will appreciate Maliki's condemnation of AQI's assassination of Abu Risha? Since it's so logical to think that Sunnis will appreciate Maliki's statement, why don't Democrats think that this is Maliki's opportunity to build a bridge to reconciliation?
Here's how the BBC characterized the scene in Anbar:
Mourners chanted "We will take our revenge" and "There is no God but Allah and al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah" as the procession continued to the family cemetery.Democrats have said that Iraqis aren't stepping up to the plate to defend their country. It's obvious that that isn't a problem in Anbar. In fact, it's apparent that this assassination has re-stoked the fire of Anbar's Sunnis. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be an AQI terrorist in Anbar right now.
No group has said it carried out the attack but most believe it was the work of al-Qaeda.
Ahmed Abu Risha has been named as the tribal group's new leader after the death of his brother. He told the Reuters news agency: "All the tribes agreed to fight al-Qaeda until the last child in Anbar."
Sheikh Rashid Majid, a leader of the al-Bufahad tribe in Ramadi, said: "The killing will give us more energy...to continue confronting al-Qaeda members and to dispose of them."
AQI had the backing of Sunni Muslims when they were perceived as being men of religion. That's been exposed as a fallacy. They've been exposed as being nothing more than a clan of powermongers who only use religion as a recruiting tool. That won't work anymore.
That's why I'm confident that we'll see bigger improvements in Iraq in the next 3-4 months. AQI has alienated the Iraqi people with their indiscriminate violence. Don't be surprised if we look back 6 months or a year from now and think of this assassination as the last major turning point in Iraq's reconciliation process.
Posted Friday, September 14, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment 1 by Landumschlossen at 14-Sep-07 09:43 PM
"Frankly, I wouldn't want to be an AQI terrorist in Anbar right now"
Oh give me a break. You don't have the balls to be have ever been in Anbar.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-07 09:50 PM
"Frankly, I wouldn't want to be an AQI terrorist in Anbar right now."
Oh give me a break. You don't have the balls to be have ever been in Anbar.
Comment by Landumschlossen
Theoretically speaking, how would that negate my point???
Hillary vs. Rudy
It was inevitable that Hillary would respond after Rudy chastised Hillary for not condemning MoveOn.org's 'Betray Us' ad against Gen. David Petraeus. Her response was less than stirring:
"It's hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the '08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush's failed Iraq strategy."That won't measure up to the efficiency with which her husband's war room responded. It's also worth noting that she didn't distance herself from MoveOn's NY Times ad. More importantly, she isn't repentant for her statement to Gen. Petraeus' that his report "requires the willing suspension of disbelief." She's clearly implying that he's either lying or too incompetent to put together data that accurately reflects the situation in Iraq.
It's also worth noting that Hillary claims that Mayor Giuliani is running the "first negative ad of the '08 campaign", especially after Politico.com quoted an anonymous Democrat senator as making this statement:
"No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV," noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. "The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us."Why would Hillary or any other Democrat directly call Gen. Petraeus a liar when they're counting on MoveOn for that? It's also laughable to think that Hillary is chiding someone for going negative after she essentially called Gen. Petraeus a liar. Personally, I'm glad that Rudy's hitting Hillary hard for using weasel words to call Gen. Petraeus a liar.
That MoveOn.org ad isn't going away anytime soon. In fact, I think it's this year's gift that keeps on giving to Republicans. Democrats won't distance themselves from MoveOn. Republican presidential candidates will talk about it in their stump speeches, asking why Democrats won't denounce such a vile organization. I'd be surprised if the RNC didn't create a web advertisement with the quote "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." Then show Obama, Hillary and the second tier candidates standing silent when asked to denounce MoveOn.Their silence will be deafening.
Posted Saturday, September 15, 2007 1:24 AM
No comments.
Stay the Course, Continue the Presence, Increase Our Forces
That's part of a quote from Rep. Jim Oberstar in this WC Trib article. It's also inaccurate. Here's the full quote:
Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., said the public wants a change in Iraq and Congress has attempted to alter the Iraq strategy, but both have fallen on "deaf ears."Let's be clear about one thing...one very important thing: Gen. Petraeus' and Amb. Crocker's testimony this week have changed the nation's mood towards the war. I'm not saying that there's suddenly a 'give em hell Harry' mood in the country. I am saying that there's suddenly a 'let's give them a chance' mood in the country because they've listened to Gen. Petraeus' testimony. In listening to his testimony, they've concluded that he's a straight shooter. They've concluded that he knows what he's doing, something I don't think ever happened with other commanders.
"So whatever message the Congress crafts, whatever message the American people send in the election is clearly offset by the Bush administration's insistence that United States will stay the course, continue the presence, increase our forces," Oberstar said.
Let's also admit that it's dishonest for Rep. Oberstar to say that the Bush administration insists on increasing the forces, especially after Thursday night's announcement that he's calling for a near-immediate withdrawal of 5,700 troops before Christmas and a possible withdrawal of more than 30,000 troops overall before this time next fall.
Rep. Oberstar might get the loons to believe him but thinking people will reject his characterization as partisan spin.
Here's another collection of misleading statements:
Dorgan said the Bush administration is using the troop surge drawdown as a "public relations approach. They are describing this as a major change of course, and it's not," he said. "At the end of that, we'll be at where we were six months ago."Sen. Dorgan is piling it on thick when he says that the surge isn't a major change of course. When he says that "we'll be at where we were six months ago", he's right from the standpoint that we'll return to the same troop levels. He couldn't be more wrong, though, from a security standpoint. The Iraqi security situation has improved dramatically since the surge began.
Dorgan said efforts should be made to focus the U.S. military strategy on training Iraqi security forces and on dismantling terrorist operations. "The mission should not be the type of mission that requires the number of forces that Gen. Petraeus is talking about," he said.
Democrats are attempting to spin the situation in Iraq because it's their only hope of winning the White House in 2008. The bad news for them is that the average citizen thought that Petraeus' testimony was credible and detailed.
Credible and detailed will defeat spin every time.
Posted Saturday, September 15, 2007 11:15 PM
No comments.
Starving Transportation the DFL Way
In 2002, Minnesota dealt with a huge budget deficit. In 2007, the state was running a sizable surplus. It's against that backdrop that we find out that Democrats favored Jesse Ventura's license tab fee cuts in 2002. It's also true that the DFL proposed increasing almost every major transportation funding mechanism in 2007.
DFL Senator Dean Johnson of Willmar, the newly-appointed chairman of the transportation budget division, says he agrees with the governor on cutting tab fees and balancing highway and transit funding, but he predicts Ventura's plan won't make it through the Legislature intact.Despite these facts, the Alliance for a Better Minnesota whined about how Gov. Pawlenty shortchanged transportation:Johnson: No initiative ever breezes through, the governor has simply taken step one, and we're very appreciative.Johnson says the Senate proposal to cut license tabs probably won't go as far as the governor's, and may be in the $140 million range. House Republicans are also talking about tab fee cuts, but they haven't made a firm commitment.
The Facts about Tim Pawlenty's Record:Here's a clue for the clueless: When you're facing a state record budget deficit, the money's gotta come from somewhere. It's just that simple. The dirty little secret that the DFL doesn't want you to know is that Tim Pawlenty's transportation proposal in 2007 was more generous without increasing taxes than the DFL's transportation budget was after raising taxes.
Pawlenty 2005 Transportation Plan Relied On Borrowing $4.5 Billion: In 2005, Pawlenty proposed a 10-year, $7.5 billion transportation package. The plan called for $2.65 billion by dedicating 100 percent of the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) to transportation and $4.5 billion of borrowing to accelerate construction of major highway projects. Democratic lawmakers criticized Pawlenty's reliance on borrowing to pay for road projects rather than looking for ways to raise more revenue. Pawlenty's plan did not advance in the House or Senate. (The Legal Ledger, 1/24/05; Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 12/23/04; Star Tribune, 5/13/05)
Vetoed Transportation Bill: In 2005, Pawlenty vetoed a transportation finance bill that would have provided $7.8 billion over 10 years for roads, buses and passenger trains. The bill also included an increase in the state's tax on gasoline by ten cents per gallon. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/20/05)
Pawlenty 2004-05 Budget Proposal Did Little For Local Roads & Transit: In 2003, Pawlenty conceded that his proposed 2004-05 budget proposal for transportation did little for local roads and transit. Pawlenty proposed an overall 11 percent cut in transportation funding with a 64 percent drop in state general fund money. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/24/03; Star Tribune, 2/19/03
Finances Delay Highway Construction: The state's decision to build with borrowed money and expected federal funding has led to deteriorating roadways. Existing roads are now in their worst condition in decades, according to the state Department of Transportation. The agency's cash balance dwindled from a $155 million surplus in 2002 to a deficit of $60 million before officials were legally required to get back in the black. According to the Star Tribune, tight finances are starting to delay highway construction, even on projects already underway. (Star Tribune, 7/4/06)
It's pretty pathetic when the DFL blames Gov. Pawlenty for a transportation funding shortfall during the biggest budget deficit in state history and after the DFL voted to cut $140 million out of the Transportation budget in 2002.
Isn't it convenient that the Strib decided not to include that information in their articles?
Posted Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:31 AM
Comment 1 by Britt Robson at 17-Sep-07 05:17 PM
Not to interrupt your righteous frothing, but the biggest state budget deficit in history was the 2003 session, not 2002. In 2002, Ventura was the only one offering both spending cuts and tax increases to balance the budget. As legislative leaders and gubernatorial candidates, Pawlenty and Roger Moe cut a deal to push off all hard decisions and circumvented Ventura, which is one reason why the 2003 deficit was so large.
Meanwhile, do you really want to directly compare a proposed $140 million (with an m) cut in fees in 2002 with a vetoed $7.5 billion (with a b) bill passed by bipartisan majorities in both houses in 2005?
Finally, of course Pawlenty's transportation numbers for '07 are larger than the DFL's--you've got all that interest you have to pay on the borrowing that T-Paw wants to do so he can go to the convention as a vice presidential wannabe able to say he didn't raise taxes. But as you so eloquently put it, sooner or later, "the money's gotta come from somewhere." Who should pay it, us or our kids?
How Much Is Enough?
That's the question I was left with after attending a League of Women Voters Education Forum Saturday morning. I told Steve Gottwalt, Dave Kleis and Jim Knoblach afterwards that I was willing to stipulate that the EdMinn people likely were from the same galaxy as me but I wasn't willing to stipulate that they were from the same solar system. They were that bizarre.
Before going any further, I'll just warn you that you'd best make yourself comfortable because I've got alot of weird things to tell you about.
Let's start with some of the most memorable quotes from the Forum. The first memorable quote was from 'Grandpa Larry' Haws. Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say "Maybe we do need to prioritize."
Geez, Larry, don't go too far out on that limb.
I wish I could say that that information is a surprise but it isn't.It just confirms what every GOP activist knew: that the DFL didn't establish priorities. They didn't even establish budget targets even though they're mandated to do so by law. They just set wildly increasing spending as their priority.
Another memorable moment came after Steve talked about not going to all day kindergarten. Steve said that parents help their children as much simply by reading to them each day. At that point, Grandpa Larry said (in a rather condescending tone of voice) "Maybe I should pass a law mandating that parents read to their children." I thought he might've been trying to send the signal that such a simple thing didn't belong in a discussion about serious education policy. Then too, I don't know because I know how many stupid bills the House offered this session. It's entirely possible that he might've been serious.
Karen Cash was the next to the last audience member to speak. Her statement was memorable because here's what she said:
"We were so excited in November but we were so disappointed at the end of the session."Tarryl Clark did her best to console her at that point, saying that some improvements were made ( TRANSLATION: We spent some more money) before promising that they'd do better the next time.
The last question was directed at Steve Gottwalt. The man identified himself as the president of some education group but I couldn't hear which one. The gentleman asked Steve "Are you guys gonna talk to Pawlenty and tell him to get rid of that stupid no new taxes pledge"?
I told the guy sitting next to me "Do these people think the taxpayers are their personal ATM machine"? It was stunning. He acted like they were entitled to major spending increases. I guess I shouldn't be surprised but I was stunned at his steadfastness and arrogance.
I also want to give Steve credit for fighting a civil but principled fight against the five liberals who shared the dais with him. Here's some of the best questions that Steve asked:
Do schools have enough flexibility to do things that improve the child's ability to learn?
How much are unfunded mandates taking away a school's ability to stay flexible?
He asked the panel to define what "the core" was. (Larry Haws kept repeating that term in terms of what the referendums would be paying for.)
Here's some of the things that Steve made statements on:
Don't expand the school's responsibilities. He said that schools did this <----> much in the 1980's and this <--------> much today.
Steve also pointed out that administrators set a goal of the state paying for 70 percent of the school's budget when the Minnesota Dream program was all the rage and that the state is now funding 80-85 percent today.
Another thing that Steve talked about during his opening statement was the disparity between what the Twin Cities gets for special education students and what outstate gets per student. Outstate schools get less than half of what metro schools get per student. Steve said that that wasn't fair. I wholeheartedly agree.
This post wouldn't be complete if I didn't include a couple other things.
One is Greg Vandal's statement that Minnesota is underfunding education by $2 billion annually. Mr. Vandal is the superintendent of schools in the Sauk Rapids-Rice School District. What objective criteria Mr. Vandal uses to arrive at that conclusion is anybody's guess.
Another statement that everyone needs to hear is that Tarryl told Steve that "I've studied everything thoroughly and there simply isn't any place to cut. We just need more revenue in the system." It's a strange statement considering the fact that the legislature didn't conduct oversight hearings like Tarryl promised Leo & I at a January town hall meeting. These oversight hearings were supposed to identify waste in the budget.
The other thing that left an impression on me was the lack of any discussion in terms of real reforms in education policy or education funding. Apparently, reform isn't part of their vocabulary.
Originally posted Sunday, September 16, 2007, revised 21-Oct 1:26 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Sep-07 11:39 PM
Anybody that says there isn't enough money for education is either an idiot or lying through their teeth, neither of which is a recommendation for someone charged with educating our children.
State aid to education has doubled in just 7 years. Results have improved by no more than a few percent, if at all, and they were (and are) dismal at best. The best-performing school districts do so with $2500 less per pupil than the average school district, and about HALF what the lowest performing districts spend. Private schools and home schools perform even better and for even less.
I say the schools shouldn't get another DIME until they tell us exactly how much academic /improvement/ we're buying. Any business that doubled prices and still had 50% rejects would find its executives either fired or, more likely, in jail, yet we reward our educrats with more money.
Comment 2 by BoardWatcher at 18-Sep-07 09:59 PM
I was also at the meeting and I jotted down a few priceless quotes:
Vandal: "I'm the CEO of a moderate sized business"...."P.S. Minnesota has figured out the cost of education" (Sounds like when Gore invented the internet.)
"I'm in charge of P.S. Minnesota"
Oh I'm wondering what kind of change he is making serving as the lead for P.S. Minnesota.
"Using national experts the number was $1B" more funding to meet todays challenges and..."$2B for future challenges". I have looked at his national expert. Yes read that 1 hired gun, who has given the same report to several states. Who'd have guessed every state studied seems to need massive amounts of more money to fund current and future needs.
Haws: "We cannot mandate parents to read to children. the only thing we can do is spend money."
Clark: "We can't reflect average in the way we test"... "Our kids are above average"....."Funding formulas cannot happen without additional money"....."The funding formula needs to be complicated to be equal". This is some seriously fuzzy thinking.
I'm not sure but I thought I heard some discussion that there has been an attempt at state funding for P.S. Minnesota. Is there any truth to that?
OK what I see is a massive push for full day kindergarten and pre-K care on the taxpayer dime. This would cost a bundle and I would rather raise my own kids.....
