September 17-23, 2007
Sep 17 12:13 Gen. Reid Charts New Direction Sep 18 07:22 Sen. Coleman Challenges Ciresi, Franken Sep 18 08:11 Jack Kelly's Finest Sep 18 09:01 Cohen Pillories Hillary Sep 19 15:05 Johanns To Enter Race For Hagel's Seat Sep 20 08:29 Murtha Leads House In 'No Comment' Comments Sep 21 03:13 The People Have Figured Things Out Sep 23 11:48 Syria's Nukes Showing?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Gen. Reid Charts New Direction
A year ago, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other high-profile Democrats were telling President Bush to listen to his generals, implying that President Bush wasn't doing that. Now that Gen. Petraeus has delivered a report that is at odds with their agenda, 'Gen.' Reid has decided that that isn't the right thing to do. Here's what he said:
In his first comments about the Democrats' strategy for changing the course in Iraq since President Bush's address Thursday, Reid said the only troops left in Iraq by Spring should be for counter-terrorism efforts and to protect American resources.In other words, Sen. Reid is telling Americans that they should listen to Democrats, not Gen. Petraeus. It's clear that Gen. Petraeus sees a different mission for our troops in Iraq than does armchair Gen. Reid. I don't think that Harry Reid actually is for this policy. I'm convinced that he's pushing this policy because that's what the puppeteers at MoveOn.org are telling him is his agenda.
"Our new amendment we will offer next week will not include training Iraqis," Reid told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "We have spent billions of dollars training Iraqis." and they should be trained up pretty good now."
The more I think of it, the more I realize that calling MoveOn.org a bunch of puppeteers isn't right. It's more accurate to call them ventriloquists; whatever they say, Reid, Pelosi and Murtha repeat.
If you think about it, Reid's policy initiative is a disaster. Why wouldn't we be willing to train Iraqi forces? There isn't any doubt that without further training, Iraq won't be able to defend itself. If Iraq isn't able to defend itself, it won't take long before Iran, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups start a regionwide conflict.
Here's some worthwhile exchanges he had with Reno Gazette-Journal reporter Anjeanette Damon:
Q: You disagree with the assessment President Bush and Gen. Petraeus put forth this week. How do you think the course should be changed?Notice how Reid didn't answer her question about how the "course should be changed"? He didn't get to that until after he made some outlandish, inaccurate statements about President Bush and the war in Iraq. The notion that there's been a million Iraqis killed since the start of the war is absurd. Here's what the Iraqi Health Minister said a year ago:
A: All you have to do is look at what they said. Nothing has changed since the surge started. Today, now we learn that 1 million Iraqis have been killed since the war started. A million. That's pretty hard to comprehend: 3,800 Americans, 30,000 wounded. More than 2,000 double amputees.
The president, of course boasts about how well things are going.
In November 2006 Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion between 100,000 and 150,000 people have been killed.Either Sen. Reid wants us to believe that 850,000 to 900,000 Iraqis have died this year or that the Iraqi Health Minister is way off with his figures. Based on Sen. Reid's history, I wouldn't buy into that if my life depended on it.
Q: How should the course be changed?There's a circular quality to Reid's statements. He's repeatedly said that we need a change in course, that Iraqis aren't stepping up and doing their fair share of the fighting. Now he's saying that the Iraqi troops are proficient. After all, if they're "trained up pretty good", they've got to be proficient, right?
A: We should do what my amendment said we should do: start redeploying troops immediately and have all the American troops out of Iraq by the first of April, except those who are involved in counter-terrorism.
The original amendment said protecting our assets and it also said training Iraqis. Our new amendment we will offer next week will not include training Iraqis. We have spent billions of dollars training Iraqis and they should be trained up pretty good now.
I don't think that Harry Reid realizes how big of a credibility problem he has. If he did, he wouldn't be making such outlandish statements.
Originally posted Monday, September 17, 2007, revised 18-Sep 7:37 AM
No comments.
Sen. Coleman Challenges Ciresi, Franken
Monday afternoon, Sen. Coleman accused MoveOn.org of smearing "the integrity and character of General David Petraeus." That's a stark contrast with his potential opponents, Mike Ciresi and Al Franken. Ciresi initially denounced MoveOn.org's ad but has since distanced himself from his initial statement. Franken has been silent throughout.
Here's the Sen. Coleman's official statement challenging Ciresi and Franken to repudiate MoveOn.org for running their disgusting advertisement:
United States Senator Norm Coleman today called upon Al Franken and Mike Ciresi to unequivocally condemn the efforts of the radical left-wing organization, MoveOn, to smear the integrity and character of General David Petraeus.That statement is pitch perfect. Sen. Coleman acknowledges that Mssrs. Ciresi and Franken have the right to challenge current Iraq policy while saying, correctly, that there isn't a place for attacking the personal integrity of a distinguished officer.
"Its baffling that one week after MoveOn.org's vicious and over the top attack ad that Al Franken and Mike Ciresi have not cleared the record on where they stand. This is a deliberate smear attack against one of America's military leaders during a time of war," said Coleman. "These types of attacks, designed to raise money for MoveOn and to further their radical left wing agenda does little to elevate the debate over the future of our course of action in Iraq. I call upon Al Franken and Mike Ciresi to do the right thing and repudiate these vicious attacks, and furthermore, to have the courage to reject MoveOn's political agenda, as well as their funds."
Franken has been a long-time supporter of MoveOn, having supported their financial efforts personally, and having helped them fundraise. Ciresi, seemed to have repudiated the ad in a statement last week, but then backtracked. Even United States Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for President in 2004, rejected the MoveOn ad, saying:
"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country."
Coleman said that differences of opinion on policies related to Iraq should not be confused with personal attacks on the character and integrity of a distinguished United States military leader.
"Al Franken has every right to call for ending financial support for American troops in Iraq, and Mike Ciresi has every right to support an immediate withdrawal of American troops, and, while I disagree with their positions, I would hope they would join me in repudiating the efforts of those who seek to dishonor this debate with personal attacks that do little to further the dialogue and debate about our need for success in Iraq."
I'm not expecting Franken and Ciresi to speak out against MoveOn.org because they don't want to alienate MoveOn.org volunteers and voters before securing the DFL nomination.
By then, not speaking out against MoveOn will doom them against Sen. Coleman. He's taken out a sensible, principled stand for defending a genuine American patriot. They will have taken an unprincipled, 'the-ends-justifies-the-means' stand to pander to a bunch of hateful partisans.
That won't play well with Minnesotans. They want people that work together. That doesn't describe Ciresi or Franken, does it?
Posted Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:22 AM
No comments.
Jack Kelly's Finest
Longtime readers of this blog know that I've always enjoyed Jack Kelly's columns. This one is clearly one of his best, in my opinion. Kelly starts off by providing a history lesson on the jihadist war against civilization and the leaders they assassinated to build their empire. Then the column takes a twist into Iraq:
The Anbar Salvation Council has chosen Sheikh Abu Risha's brother, Ahmed, as its new leader. "All the tribes agreed to fight al Qaida until the last child in Anbar," Ahmed Abu Risha said. "The killing will give us more energy...to continue confronting al Qaida members and to dispose of them," said another member of the council, Sheikh Rashid Majid.AQI was faced with a situation in which there weren't any good options. They knew that assassinating a popular leader would inflame the Anbar Sunnis. They also knew that leaving him in place wasn't an option. Had they left Abu Risha in place, he would've become a nationally respected leader that could've turned out the people to destroy AQI.
By assassinating Abu Risha, they've fueled the fire of the survivors. Now they're looking to repay AQI for assassinating their beloved leader. Essentially, it's a heads they win, tails we lose situation for AQI terrorists.
As I said here,this assassination has the potential of uniting the Shia and Sunni. I won't predict that but it's created an opportunity, a believe that Kelly apparently shares:
The assassination of Sheikh Abu Risha provides an opportunity for reconciliation between Anbar's Sunnis and the Shia-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who in the past has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.Al-Maliki's gesture certainly raises the probability of national reconciliation. If Maliki can show the Sunni sheikhs in Anbar that he's acting in a good faith manner, that might be what's needed to tip the scales and bring about the reconciliation that Iraq so badly needs.
The presence of Mr. al-Rubaie, a Shia, at Sheikh Abu Risha's funeral is an indication Mr. Maliki may not miss this opportunity. His decision to erect a statue of Abu Risha in Ramadi was well received.
If that happens, AQI will only have itself to blame. Their murderous ideology will have been exposed for all the world to see.
Posted Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:12 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 20-Sep-07 10:37 AM
National Review columnist Thomas Sowell wants out of this Wilsonian experiment, which the CBO estimates conservatively will cost $2.5 trillion US dollars if we stay for the long haul, assuming we can draw down our troop presence.
"If nothing else comes out of the Iraq war, it should banish the concept of "nation-building" from our language and our minds. "The track record of nation-building and Wilsonian grandiosity ought to give anyone pause," as was said in this column before the Iraq war began.
"We can now add the track record of Iraq to the list of disasters."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTYxNjRjYmI2YTUyODZiNzlhZDZmZTViZWU0MjZlZDM
Cohen Pillories Hillary
There isn't any question about Richard Cohen being a liberal columnist. That said, he deserves credit for writing this column, in which he pillories Hillary for not coming to Gen. Petraeus' defense. I just sent Mr. Cohen an email thanking him for not mincing words and for taking on the MoveOn.org bullies. I'd recommend we all take the time to do that. Here's a tasty portion from Cohen's column:
If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than "the politics of personal destruction," it does not come to mind. All the others, "It's the economy, stupid," for instance, belong to one or the other, but "the politics of personal destruction" is a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly, so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as "General Betray Us," Hillary Clinton looked the other way. This was the politics of personal expediency.There's an old saying in Middle East diplomacy that says that "Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." It appears as though Hillary has missed this opportunity to prove herself a genuine centrist. She failed this test badly and the whole world noticed.
Part of the reason why everyone noticed is because Rudy Giuliani spotted an opening and drew a big red X on Hillary's chest for going silent:
The Web ad shows Clinton voting for the Iraq war in 2002. "But now that she's running for president, Hillary Clinton has changed her position," a narrator says, "even joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus."This flap isn't going away anytime soon, though it won't stop Hillary from getting the nomination. This will be used from time to time to remind people that Hillary has a hypocrisy issue. Here's an example of that hypocrisy in action:
It is an odd standard Clinton has when it comes to smears. When the entertainment mogul David Geffen, once a Clinton supporter, called both Bill and Hillary liars, Hillary not only decried the remark as a particularly vivid example of the "politics of personal destruction," but she demanded that Barack Obama do the same, and return a $2,300 donation Geffen had given him. Yet when Clinton herself was asked to repudiate the abuse of Petraeus, she either saw no reason to do so or, much more likely, was afraid to alienate an important constituency, the 3.3 million members of MoveOn.org, who stand symbolically at the frontiers of New Hampshire and Iowa. She would, it seems, rather be president than right.What's apparent is that Hillary demands to be treated by a different set of rules than she accords to others. When she demanded that Barack Obama return Geffen's check after Geffen called Bill and Hillary liars, she established a standard against which she would later be judged. When MoveOn.org all but called Gen. Petraeus a traitor, she was silent. Her silence spoke volumes about her lack of character. It told everyone that she didn't believe that the politics of personal destruction cut both ways.
Just as I was happy to see Rudy Giuliani chastise Hillary and MoveOn.org, I'm also thankful that a man like Mr. Cohen took the time to take Hillary to the woodshed, too. After all, there really isn't an appropriate time to dive into the politics of personal destruction.
Posted Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 20-Sep-07 10:50 AM
MoveOn, Hillary and House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio owe the U.S. military an apology for their recent remarks.
Boehner said that the billions we're spending and the American lives lost in Iraq is a "small price to pay" for stopping Al Qaida in Iraq.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/9/17/iraq-debate-hardens-despite-report.html
Johanns To Enter Race For Hagel's Seat
Move over, Jon Bruning; you've got company. According to this article, US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will resign soon so he can run for the Senate seat currently occupied by Chuck Hagel. Hagel has announced his retirement at the end of this term. The news that we were getting rid of Chuck Hagel put a smile on Republicans' faces. Knowing that Nebraskans will have two top-tier candidates to pick from to replace Hagel is even better news. In fact, Johanns' candidacy might stop Bob Kerrey's return to politics.
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns has decided to resign from President Bush's cabinet to return to Nebraska and enter the 2008 Senate race. Johanns, the former two-term Republican governor, began placing phone calls to a number of friends and supporters in the state Tuesday night to inform them of his decision.I'll be surprised if Johanns isn't the immediate frontrunner for the GOP nomination. This isn't to take anything away from Jon Bruning or Hal Daub. It's just that Johanns was a popular governor before becoming President Bush's Agriculture Secretary. Having that high of a profile certainly will help Johanns make the case that he gives Republicans the best chance of holding the Nebraska seat.
A formal announcement is expected in Nebraska next week after Johanns has submitted his resignation to the White House, according to a source close to Johanns.
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 20-Sep-07 10:33 AM
From James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family Ministry: "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.
"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/235093.aspx
Murtha Leads House In 'No Comment' Comments
If there's anything consistent about John Murtha other than his demands to legislate defeat in Iraq, it's his unwillingness to answer reporters' questions. I know this from personal experience. This time, Rep. Murtha won't answer the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's questions:
CREW criticizes Mr. Murtha for being too close to PMA Group, a lobbying firm founded by a former staffer on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which the congressman chairs. The firm has been very successful at winning federal contracts for its clients. PMA Group and some of its clients also are top donors for Mr. Murtha's campaigns, giving $274,649 in the 2006 election cycle.If that isn't bad enough, Rep. Murtha has notified the U.S. District Court of Southern California that he won't honor their subpoena to testify in the trial of a a defense contractor named Brent Wilkes:
Mr. Murtha also faces criticism for directing a $1 million earmark to a subsidiary of Concurrent Technologies Corp., an organization based in the congressman's district.
Mr. Murtha's office declined to comment, but the congressman has said it is his duty to bring federal money to Pennsylvania and spur economic development.
On Monday night, Mr. Murtha released a floor statement about his receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. District Court of Southern California in the trial of Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor.I'll ask Rep. Murtha which precedents and privileges he's referring to but I'm expecting his office to decline comment on the subject.
Mr. Cunningham, the former California lawmaker, is serving an eight-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to accepting more than $2 million in bribes to help Mr. Wilkes and others.
In his statement, Mr. Murtha said he would resist the subpoena, citing advice from the House general counsel that it "is inconsistent with precedents and privileges of the House."
Here's more proof that John Murtha isn't interested in answering anyone's questions:
It isn't difficult to make the case that Rep. Murtha is a loudmouth and a bully. It's child's play to make the case that he thinks he can play by his own set of rules. This reinforces my theory that Rep. Murtha believes that he doesn't serve in the House but that he rules a kingdom:
UPDATE: This Seattle Times article says that all 13 congresscritters have decided to not testify at the trial:Ditto their complaints of Democrats' insensitivity to ethical standards, which follow the indictment on bribery charges of a prominent House Democrat, William Jefferson, and the complaint by an even more prominent Democrat, John Murtha, that ethics reform is "pure crap."The last thing John Murtha will vote for is genuine ethics reform. It's a matter of public record that he's one of the sleaziest, most unethical politicians in our nation's history. He's essentially the ruler of his military earmark 'kingdom'. He's earmarked funds, which are essentially no-bid contracts, to his friends who comprise the military infrastructure. In return, he's received millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and 12 House colleagues plan to fight subpoenas issued to them in the federal trial of a defense contractor accused of bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif.Here's what the Constitution says about the Speech & Debate Clause:
The subpoenas for the trial, due to start soon in San Diego, were issued to a bipartisan group of lawmakers by Mark Geragos, an attorney representing contractor Brent Wilkes. An aide to Dicks said the House counsel said the lawmakers were unlikely to be required to testify and the subpoenas were "merely a shotgun, grandstanding legal tactic." In a statement, Dicks said, "I have never met or spoken to Mr. Wilkes, nor have I had anything to do with any of his companies."
Stanley Brand, a former House counsel, predicted House members would not be forced to testify, citing the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause, which protects lawmakers while they are performing legislative duties.
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same ; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.It's a stretch to see how the Speech and Debate clause prevents them from testifying in a trial. It isn't a stretch to think that this tactic is being used to shield themselves from taking responsibilities for their actions. That would be totally in character of some, though not all, of these representatives. I hope the court slaps Murtha down and tells him that he must live by the same laws that others live by.
At this point, I think he believes he's beyond that. It's time he learned otherwise.
Originally posted Thursday, September 20, 2007, revised 23-Sep 10:58 PM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 20-Sep-07 10:41 AM
Maybe he'll follow Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill., who's expected to announce his retirement from Congress at the end of his term today.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTYxNjRjYmI2YTUyODZiNzlhZDZmZTViZWU0MjZlZDM
Weller and Murtha are both ranked among the top most corrupt members of Congress.
The People Have Figured Things Out
Despite MoveOn.org's NY Times advertisement and despite Hillary Clinton's statement to Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Petraeus' is seen as more trustworthy now than before he testified. That's according to a new Gallup Poll:
In survey results released Wednesday by the Gallup polling organization, 54 percent of respondents said they believe Petraeus' plan for removing troops is the right pace or too quick, while only 33 percent view the withdrawal as moving too slowly. Also, 52 percent of those polled said the plan withdraws the right amount or too many troops, while 36 percent said it removes too few troops.This is proof that the American people have rejected MoveOn.org's attempt to smear a genuine American hero. They've figured it out that Gen. Petraeus is a straight shooter whose testimony was credible.
The same poll shows that, even after attacks on his credibility and integrity from Senate Democrats, as well as the MoveOn.org ad that asked if he was "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" a higher percentage of respondents now view the top U.S. military commander in Iraq favorably (61 percent) than before his testimony (52 percent), while only 22 percent view him unfavorably.
President Bush entered the MoveOn.org fray this morning. Here's what he said:
"I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on Gen. Petraeus but on the U.S. military, and I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that ad."That will leave a mark. The MoveOn ad isn't going away anytime soon because Americans are basically fair. It's also fair to say that they aren't as rabidly anti-war as MoveOn.org wants us to believe they are.
"And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush added. "That was a sorry deal."
Predictably, Eli Pariser shot back with this quote:
"What's disgusting is that the President has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war," said Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action Committee.Mr. Pariser can yap all he wants but his is a minority opinion in the United States. The truth is that he hasn't figured it out that we aren't a nation of defeatists or pacifists. We're a nation of winners.
Posted Friday, September 21, 2007 3:14 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 23-Sep-07 08:19 AM
Of course, the same poll also found that 59 percent want a timetable for withdrawl and only about a third of the people think the surge is having any positive effect.
The percent of people who don't think the US can/will win in Iraq before Petraeus' speech? 62 percent.
The percent who hold the same opinion after the speech? 64 percent. Progress, right?
Ultimately, the pollsters conclude Petraeus has bought more time, but not support for the war.
But why cite just one poll?
Here's all the most recent ones on Iraq:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Like the CBS poll that found 47 percent of the people think a withdrawl should happen faster than the "stay the course" drawdown Bush and Petraeus are hawking (another 3 percent said remove them all now, while only 29 percent said it was the right amount).
Syria's Nukes Showing?
Based on this article , I'd say that answer would be "They would've been" if not for the Israeli commandos. Here's the shocking news:
Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.Thank God for the Israeli commandos and to Israeli intelligence. Without their find, this operation wouldn't have happened. Without their find, the Syrians would've received a jump start to their nuclear weapons program.
The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.
They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, according to Israeli sources. They located the nuclear material at a compound near Dayr az-Zwar in the north.
Though the Democratic presidential candidates won't admit it, this also shows that the Bush administration didn't approve the operation without getting confirmed proof of the nuclear materials stored in Syria:
Evidence that North Korean personnel were at the site is said to have been shared with President George W Bush over the summer. A senior American source said the administration sought proof of nuclear-related activities before giving the attack its blessing.Another thing that you won't hear is Demmocrats giving President Bush credit for insisting on hard evidence before giving Washington's blessing.
Posted Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:49 AM
No comments.
