Dem Hypocrisy & The Employee Free Choice Act

I have blogged on The Employee Free Choice Act several times (see here, here, here, here, and here), noting that it is a horrendous bill that would strip American workers of their most basic of democratic rights - the right to a secret ballot. I have also noted that the Democratic party is behind this bill in toto, including each of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. Their hypocrisy in supporting this legislation is breathtaking.

George Will has added to the arguments against the Employee Free Choice Act today with some some interesting facts that you won't find on Clinton's or Obama's website:

. . . [On Tuesday,] unions were demonstrating in support of legislation with the Orwellian title ``Employee Free Choice Act.'' It would deny employees the choice of a secret ballot when voting on unionization of their workplace. Instead, union organizers would use the ``card check'' system, which allows them to pick the voters they want: Once a majority of workers -- exposed one at a time to face-to-face pressure from union organizers -- sign a union card, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

The Supreme Court has said that the card-check system is ``admittedly inferior to the election process.'' Hillary Clinton, who has given herself a makeover as a moderate, and who was elected by secret ballots, and who hopes that next year voters will use their secret ballots to give to her the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, nevertheless toes labor's line when she advocates abolishing workers' right to a secret ballot. Abolition, she says, will ``create a fair and level playing field between workers and employers.''

When in March the House passed card-check legislation for unpersuasive unions, a principal sponsor was George Miller, D-Calif., who in 2001 wrote, with 15 colleagues, to Mexican officials, on behalf of the rights of Mexican workers, insisting ``that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.'' . .

Read the entire story here. The hypocrisy of Democrats and their willingness to injure workers and sacrifice the economy to payback Big Labour is horrendous. How any but the unhinged far left, anti-capitalist socialists and comunists, and the irredeemably gullible can vote for these people is beyond me.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bringing Dems & The Far Left Together Results In Clarity

There is a certain kind of symbiosis that occurs when the far left, steeped in narcissim and wholly unmoored from reality, meets with the senior Democratic leadership who are cynically using the far left and being used by them. Gone is talk of the surge, or any pretense that it matters a wit. Gone is the pretext that our generals might be incompent or less then honest. Gone is the fiction that Iraq is in a civil war. Gone is talk of succeeding in Iraq and leaving it with a stable government. Gone is talk of our national interests or national security. Gone is talk of "supporting the troops" who are fighting and dying in Iraq. Gone is any consideration of the costs of surrendering in Iraq. Gone, in short, is all the spin and prevarication.

What is left from this symbiosis is the pure and unadulterated truth. The far left believe that the '06 election was their victory alone. The far left want their agenda to control the Democratic Party. The far left want nothing less then the complete repudiation of any policies dealing with conservatives or George Bush. The far left wants an immediate end to the war with no consideration of the cost. The far left wants us out of Iraq whether we are succeeding or not. And the Democratic leadership has bought in - they are part and parcel of the far left in America today. Observe the symbiosis in action:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday reaffirmed her commitment to end the war in Iraq, but her words were greeted with skepticism and some boos by anti-war liberal activists.

Addressing the liberal pressure group Campaign for America’s Future, Pelosi called the war in Iraq a “tragedy” and a “grotesque mistake,” but her words elicited catcalls for her to do more.

. . . The Democratic-led Congress has taken a pounding in recent opinion polls, with many Democratic voters unhappy that lawmakers have not been able to change President Bush’s policies in Iraq. Noting that Bush vetoed legislation setting a timeline for withdrawal last month, Pelosi explained to the audience why the Democrats cannot enact stringent benchmarks or set a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

“We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate or the president’s signature … those are facts and obstacles,” Pelosi said.

“Those are facts, those are obstacles; we have to overcome them and we cannot wait until November 2008 to do so,” she added. “Your impatience with the war is totally justified.”

But she did not offer details about how House Democrats might use the 2008 House defense appropriations bill to force Bush’s hand to end the U.S. commitment to Iraq. Some Democrats have discussed two measures, introduced by Reps. David Price (D-N.C.) and Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), respectively, which would revoke Bush’s authority to wage war in Iraq.

Even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading anti-war Democrat and close Pelosi ally, did not escape the taunting as he introduced Pelosi.

“She’s worked tirelessly to end” this war, Murtha said.

“No she hasn’t,” shouted a woman in the crowd.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged the same political landscape last week.

“We raised the bar too high. [The public] thought we could continue to send the bill back to the president — with 49 [guaranteed] votes, we couldn’t do that,” he said.

Reid announced last week that there would be votes on amendments to the defense spending bill that would withdraw troops within 120 days of passage, set strong troop readiness standards, and block spending on a future military presence in Iraq after April 2008.

Speaking before Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) troubles with the anti-war left were also on display, as her Iraq talking points were met with boos for the second year in a row.

Despite boasting of her vote against the most recent Iraq supplemental spending bill, Clinton was still hit by anti-war groups, including the persistent members of Code Pink.

Shouts of “Get us out” and “Stop the war” were audible throughout Clinton’s remarks, but the part of her speech devoted to the war sparked widespread boos that eventually yielded to an outbreak of cheers and support from Clinton’s supporters in the room.

“I see the signs [that read] ‘Get us out of Iraq now,’” Clinton said. “That is what we are trying to do.”

A number of those attending said they were undecided on the 2008 race, but several of those interviewed by The Hill said they could not vote for Clinton because of her war record.

“I thought it was the same old, same old,” Carol Dragone, of Virginia Beach, Va., said of Clinton’s speech. “I don’t know how you can change so quick.”

Dragone and others said Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seemed insincere in their denunciation of the war, particularly after casting several votes to continue funding. . .

Read the story here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred on the Employee Free Choice Act

There is a particularly odious bit of anti-democratic, anti-business legislation making its way through the Congress. The Orwellian named legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act. It is anything but. It is legislation that would do away with the most fundemental democratic right of all Americans, a secret ballot, in the context of choosing whether to unionize. It is a gold engraved invitation to invidious intimidation and coercion by unions. Yet the Democrats are quite willing to impose this system on American employees. And it is no secret why. The Democrats care far more about the money that they can raise from unions then they care either about employees, businesses, or the drain on the economy that many unions in fact are today.

As the NYT reported today:

Senate Democratic leaders moved Tuesday to force a vote on organized labor’s top legislative priority, a bill that would make it far easier to organize workers. . .

The bill, already approved by the House but facing the threat of a veto by the Bush administration, would give employees at a workplace the right to unionize as soon as a majority signed cards saying they wanted to do so. Under current law, an employer can insist on a secret-ballot election, even after a majority sign.

Union leaders see enactment of the bill as the single most important step toward reversing labor’s long-term loss of membership and might. Virtually all Democrats in Congress are backing the legislation, partly because they recognize that a stronger labor movement, providing campaign contributions and volunteers, could translate into a stronger Democratic Party.

Business groups have mounted a big fight against the bill, with one organization, the Center for Union Facts, spending $500,000 on newspaper and broadcast advertisements this week alone.

. . . John J. Sweeney, [a union] president, expressed confidence that the bill would fare better if a Democrat won the White House next year. “This is really about 2009,” Mr. Sweeney said. “But it’s important that we show the country that we have majority support.” . .

Read the NYT article here. Although the Times, fails to tell us, Big Labor held a demonstration today, bussing in a crowd of people to support this economic time bomb. Hillary and the other Democratic presidential hopefuls were there to establish their bona fides as Big Labour supporters, but the man leading the charge was Teddy Kennedy - possibly the most destructive influence in American politics over the past half century other then Jimmy Carter:

Big Labor bussed thousands of activists to Capitol Hill Tuesday to lobby for the Employee Free Choice Act—an act union leaders have called their top legislative priority for the 110th Congress.

Event organizers claimed they brought 2,000 participants on 62 busses from the Campaign for America’s Future’s “Take Back America” conference to the Upper Senate Park.

There, a parade of Democratic congressmen and senators delivered hard-line progressive rhetoric to their pro-union advocates.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) furiously ripped up a full-page advertisement sponsored by the Center for Union Facts that was published that morning in the New York Times, USA Today and Roll Call.

The Center for Union Facts opposes the act, and their advertisement featured a large quotation: “There’s no reason to subject the workers to an election.” This quotation appeared with the question, “Who said it?” and displays photos of the former President of Uganda Idi Amin, President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees Bruce Raynor.

Kennedy held the advertisement high and said, “Here is that advertisement! They say there is no reason to subject the workers to elections. [It asks,] 'Who said it?' And then it says union bosses are pressuring the Senate to change the rules on union organizing. Learn about their scheme to eliminate workers’ right to a secret ballot at Union Facts.com. This is what I say to that!”

At that point Kennedy tore the advertisement into shreds-- an act that drew wild applause from the crowd.

Small print at the bottom of the Center for Union Facts’ ad reveals the quotation came from Raynor. The quotation was published in a May 31, 2003 article by the New York Times titled “Labor Turns to a Pivotal Organizing Drive.”

Read the full article here. Ted Kennedy is the low mark of the American electoral system. But while he and all other Democrats hypocritically support this bill, Fred Thompson does not. And in his usual clear prose, Fred tells us why:

There was a time in America when local governments and employers could take advantage of powerless workers. Unions formed as a result. Nowadays, government generally sides with, instead of against, unions. The single biggest advantage unions have, of course, is collective bargaining rights – the right to negotiate for whole groups of employees.

Even with these advantages, however, unions have been losing membership in every sector but government -- which is another story. In the last 25 or so years, private sector union membership has dropped from about 19 percent to under 8 percent today. Most decertification votes, giving workers the chance to end union representation, go against the unions.

One reason unions have alienated potential members is that they often focus on politics instead of supporting their members. Last week, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a Washington state teachers union that had been spending dues on political activities -- against the wishes of individual teachers. Some of those who protested the use of the funds weren't even union members but had to pay to keep their teachers' jobs.

This week, though, the unions are going to try something that could reverse their long decline. The Senate will vote on a measure the House has already passed that would do away with secret ballots on votes to unionize. This would allow union officials to visit individual workers separately to persuade them to sign a card in favor of the union. Given the rather colorful history of some labor unions, it’s not hard to understand why so many people think this is a very bad idea.

Nevertheless, the current congress may in fact pass it. Unions give a lot of their members'-- and nonmembers'-- dues to political candidates, and they're really good at providing free labor to campaigns. So they have a lot of influence in certain parts of congress. That may explain, for example, why the House Appropriations Committee is apparently planning to cut the budget of the Office of Labor Management Services -- the office that investigates illegalities by unions.

Let me restate the obvious. In America, we need the right to join a union. We also need the right not to join a union.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Surrendocrats At It Again; Who Will Respond?

General Petraeus has said that he needs several months to ascertain how well the surge is succeeding. But not those masters of military planning and strategy, Give 'Em Surrender Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. With precisely zero days of military experience between them, yet years of partisan political experience, they feel that they are qualified to pronounce judgment on the surge now. And yet again, they are taking the opportunity to preemptively announce the surge failed presented by a successful operation by terrorists in Iraq. When I wrote in my post several hours ago that four entities had the motivation to destroy the Samarra Mosque and reignite the move towards a civil war - and I included "Congressional Democrats" among the list - I was not joking or being cynical. In Iraq, there has been no violence yet as a result of the successful terrorist action. Thus, the only militant entity thus far to capitalize on the bombing are Congressional Democrats led by Reid and Pelosi:

Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.

It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.

Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."

On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks. . . .

Read the entire story here. It would seem that the fact Petraues warned that we would suffer higher US casualties as we became more agressive and moved into previously unchallenged areas is meaningless to the Surrendocrats except in as much as to how it can be twisted. There is no mention of the sectarian killings being halved, nor of the successes in Anbar Province. Reid and Pelosi are worthless partisan animals with not an ounce of patriotism nor any care for the consequences of their actions beyond the acquisition of raw political power. Will anyone in the MSM begin asking these Surrendocrats what they expect the cost to be of leaving Iraq to be fought over and divided by Iran, al Qaeda and Turkey at a minimum? Will any Conservative or moderate who has the courage of his principals respond to this partisan posturing. This is national suicide.

Read More...

Summary only...

FBI Director Says Only Matter of Time Before Terrorists Acquire Nuclear Weapons; The MSM Buries The Warning

A sizeable portion of the one billion Muslims in this world believe the United States and the West are enemies to be destroyed by any means. We know that a handful of these suicidal zealots can cause immense destruction. Thus, the nightmare scenario is that any of these terrorist organizations may gain access to nuclear weapons. And apparently, this nightmare scenario is inevitable. In remarks made yesterday before the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, FBI Director Robert Mueller made the dire warning that it was "only a matter of time and economics before terrorists will be able to purchase nuclear weapons . . .":

. . . Mr. Mueller said federal authorities, working with their counterparts overseas, must secure loose nuclear material, share intelligence about those who wish to buy and sell such material, and stop those who do -- adding that by some estimates, there is enough highly enriched uranium in global stockpiles to construct thousands of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Mueller said the economics of supply and demand dictate that someone, somewhere will provide nuclear material to the highest bidder, and that material will end up in the hands of terrorists. He said the al Qaeda terrorist network has demonstrated a clear intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction, noting that Osama bin Laden sought to buy uranium in Sudan in 1993.

But, he said, al Qaeda is not the only concern, adding that the United States faces threats from other terrorist cells around the world and from homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda but who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence.

"Several rogue nations -- and even individuals -- seek to develop nuclear capabilities," he said. "Abdul Khan, for example, was not only the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb; he peddled that technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Khan was one of many to prove that it is indeed a seller's market in the so-called atomic bazaar."

Mr. Mueller said the next terrorist attack is not a question of if, but when. . .

Read the entire story here. Allowing rouge regimes to develop nuclear arsenal raises exponentially the liklihood that we will see a mushroom cloud over one or more of our cities. The time to try and reduce this threat is now, before Iran is able to acquire any nuclear weapons and sets off a nuclear arms race among equally or even more dangerous regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

In light of the threat that we face, I think there is no question that this should have been front page news accross the MSM. Yet, inexplicably, this dire warning is not even mentioned in the New York Times. The Washington Post, for its part, did a lead article on Director Mueller, but it had nothing to do with the existential threat of nuclear terrorism. Instead, their lead article criticized Mueller for using an FBI jet for 36 trips over a five year period. Apparently, none in the MSM care for the message that Director Mueller has to deliver on the inevitability of future terrorist attacks, nor the inevitability of nuclear terrorism. The reason is clear - if terrorism and national security take center stage in the 2008 elections, the Democrat stand a greatly diminished chance of electoral victory. Thus, newsworthy information that should inform every voter is buried and goes unreported. I wonder if the editors and reporters of the MSM will feel that they bear any responsibility for the blood that will be spilled because of it?

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems & The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

There is an agenda among the more aggressive gay and lesbian groups to ensconce their lifestyle as completely acceptable within society, protected as a civil right and equal in all respects to heterosexual relationships and lifestyle. This is clearly evident in the push for gay marriage coupled with a rejection of the concept of civil unions." That push for acceptance has also been raised in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in our Armed Forces:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, . . . Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.

It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues — like gay rights and abortion — in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past — like universal health care — with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.

Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now . . .

The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.

. . . [I]n the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering. . .

Read the entire story here.

As to the charge of social engineering, leaving aside for the moment that we are in the middle of hostilities, that is not necessarily a valid argument. Our military is the most integrated of all institutions in America and, indeed, it has, more then any other single institution, served as the engine of integration in America. It has been the premeir engine of integration since Harry Truman ordered the military desegrated 59 years ago. That was an exercise in social engineering. It worked spectaulalry.

There can be no claim made that homosexuals can not or do not make every bit as good soldiers as their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the most famous military men of history were either homosexual or bisexual (Julius Caeser, Alexander, many of the Sparatans). For myself, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.

The penultimate question is not morality, nor is it a question of civil rights. The sole question must be what effect would allowing openly gay soldiers to serve have on unit cohesion? Unit cohesion is an issue of supreme importance in the military. That question was asked and answered fourteen years ago during hearings on this precise issue. The answer was that it could significantly impact unit cohesion and change the dynamics of how our units operate. Having been an infantry company commander, in light of what I know of the average soldier and military life, I concur.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that arose out of the 1993 hearings was completely appropriate. It does not punish or keep out homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. The policy merely asks gays to keep their sexual preferences out of the unit. It is functional and it works. And the fact is, we are at war. The time to engage in a grand experiment in social engineering is absolutely not while hositilities are ongoing.

But that is not what Democrats nor their radical constituency want. To understand their agenda and how far they are willing to go to achieve it, you need look no further then the Democrats treatment of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, a man who wanted to serve his country but then was outed and criticized by the liberal media for having previously appearing in gay porn. It was truly a low point. The agenda of the Democrats must be resisted.

Update: The best line coming out of the Democrat Presidential candidates' embrace of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy," comes from Conan O'Brian who speculated that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'"

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats And The MSM Suffering A Failure Of Imagination

The 9-11 Commission, in assessing the failures that led to the al Qaeda attacks of 9-11, identified our most fundamental failure as being a failure to "imagine" the gravity of the threat from radical Islam and the means by which such threat might be realized. Now, but a few years removed from 9-11, the radical Islamic ideology at the core of the 9-11 attacks is still metasticizing. We are fighting that radical Islam today in Iraq - both of the Salfi al Qaeda variety and the Khomeinist Shia variety.

Democrats argue that we should leave Iraq immediately. As Hillary Clinton put it, the Iraq war is "Bush's War." The emphasis is wholly on righting what is posited as a past moral wrong. But such an argument does not address - nor are Democrats being asked to address by the MSM - the single most signficant question that we as a nation face today. It is one of imagination. What will happen to us and the world should we withdraw from Iraq in the face of the radical Islamic threat?

Our nation's premier Orientalist, the scholar Bernard Lewis, believes that a withdraw from Iraq posited by the Democrats would embolden the radical Islamists on a fundemental level, leading to "consequences--both for Islam and for America-- [that] will be deep, wide and lasting." Oliver North, looking at CIA assessments, views the effects of such a withdraw as leading to incalculable costs. And today, Dan Senor takes the Democrats to task for failure to listen to their own experts - the one's who originally argued against the war, but who now argue against leaving Iraq:

Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."

And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."

A number of Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region's authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq.

A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.)

I heard similar warnings made repeatedly on a recent trip to almost every capital in the Persian Gulf--to some of America's closest allies and hosts of our military.

Likewise, withdrawal proponents cite career U.S. intelligence professionals as war skeptics, and not without basis. Yet here is what the U.S. intelligence community predicted in its National Intelligence Estimate early this year: "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. . . .

"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution: neighboring countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; al Qaida in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country--particularly al-Anbar province--to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion."

. . . John Burns of the New York Times . . . won Pulitzers for his coverage in Bosnia and Afghanistan before throwing himself full-bore into Iraq. This is how he described the stakes of withdrawal on "The Charlie Rose Show" recently:

"Friends of mine who are Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd--all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we're seeing now. It's really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq.

"It's difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world's flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there's complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless."

Earlier on the same program, Mr. Burns laid out his own version of Iraq Plus. "If you pull out now, and catastrophe ensues, then it is very likely that the United States would have to come back in circumstances which, of course, would be even less favorable, one might imagine, than the ones that now confront American troops here."

It would be one thing if only the architects of the Bush policy and their die-hard supporters opposed withdrawal. But four separate groups of knowledgeable critics--three of whom opposed going into Iraq--now describe the possible costs of withdrawal as very high.

If the Realists, neighboring Arab regimes, our intelligence community and some of the most knowledgeable reporters all say such a course could be disastrous, on what basis are the withdrawal advocates taking their position? . . .

Read the entire story here. To describe what is occurring between the Democrats and the MSM today as a failure to exercise imagination is a significant understatement. Our last "failure of imagination" led to 9-11. The stakes now are much higher. We have challenged the Islamists. If we back away now, it really is not hard to imagine the tremendous costs that will have to be paid by our country - costs that will dwarf the "blank check" needed to stablize Iraq.

And whom will the MSM and the Democrats blame then?

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq Rollup - The Good, The Bad, The Questionable, The Bull

The NYT is reporting that, in terms of pacification of Baghdad neighborhoods, the surge is "behind schedule" - though it is not clear from the article precisely what the counterinsurgency plan projected by this date. The NYT quotes ancedotal evidence that places blame for the slower then expected progress on Iraqi forces that have, at least in some units, been performing poorly and/or been infiltrated by insurgents working against the surge. The NYT does not address other recent information from the surge that shows very signficant strides in decreasing sectarian violence overall and in attritting some 20,000 enemy forces in just the past few months.

An Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate has released a video purporting to show the actual abduction of the three soldiers from the Tenth Mountain Division two weeks ago. They do not display the soldiers, but do show i.d. cards that appear authentic. They also claim on a website to have executed all three soldiers.

Bill Rogio and the WP are reporting on the latest Iranian mischief - supplying rockets to splinter groups of the Mahdi Army - as well as increased operational tempo targeting Mahdi Army leadership, likely aimed at limiting any attempt by the recently returned Sadr to reunify his forces and / or to reestablish his own authority. Rogio is also reporting on some important successes over the past days targeting al Qaeda throughout the country, including a notable success in Fallujah.

The NYT has an utterly inane op-ed claiming that Sadr, recently returned from hiding in Iran, is "An Enemy We Can Work With." The op-ed grossly overstates Sadr's power at this point, ignores his role as one of the primary engines of sectarian violence over the past two years, and ignores the fact that Sadr's goals for Iraq are very much at odds with the unified democracy that the U.S. has been spilling its blood for the past four years to establish. Urging the U.S. either to slow the operational tempo of attacks on Mahdi Army splinter groups or to otherwise engage Sadr diplomatically seem dangerously sophmoric.

The Democratic candidates for President continue their bidding war to see who can declare defeat in Iraq the quickest and loudest. At one point during their debate, Hillary Clinton referred to Iraq as "Bush's war," a phrase that seems to encapsulate the refusal of the left to address the ramifications of retreat from Iraq to anything beyond the 2008 elections.

The WP is raising the question of allowing illegal immigrants to join the U.S. military with a promise of citizenship at the end of service. This is not a bad idea. There are certainly historical antecedents, such as the ancient Roman military who used a similar method of recruitment in its provinces. The overriding issue has to be a vetting process to insure the loyalty of such recruits to the U.S. We have been burned badly on this before. For example, bin Laden's chief of security in the 90's and one of the al Qaeda's major operational assets was an ex-Green Beret Sgt. born in Egypt, Ali Mohammed.

The WP runs an utterly ridiculous piece on a U.S. interragator who claims to have tortured people by making them cold or having them listen to tapes all night long. It just so happens that this interragator, who now claims to be having attacks of conscience, is also a week shy of having a book released for publication. I invite everyone on all sides of the torture debate to compare the methods described in the WP article as torture with those that al Qaeda recommends in its own publications, and then decide for yourself whether this hand wringing is more then a bit idiotic.

Read More...

Summary only...

Progress in the Iraq War?

This from today's Washington Post article, "Attacks on U.S. Troops in Iraq Grow in Lethality, Complexity":

Commanders credit U.S. military operations with sharply lowering civilian deaths in Baghdad. The numbers of civilians killed and wounded as well as sectarian murders have all fallen roughly 50 percent in Baghdad in the 90 days ending in mid-May, compared with the previous three months, Simmons said, despite what some military officials described as a slight upturn in civilian deaths in May.

U.S. patrols and raids have also uncovered nearly 2,500 weapons caches and killed or captured more than 20,000 insurgents, militia members and other fighters nationwide since January. Among the enemy killed or captured are more than 1,700 individual targets considered "high value," in what military officials and analysts say is an effort to eliminate leaders of enemy cells in hopes they cannot quickly be replaced.

"Maybe this is the bloody period when we are doing the heavy fighting to get at the bad actors so we can have a more peaceful future," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

That is the factual news on the single issue of importance in Iraq - the success of the surge to date. It also seems to be very good news. So why does the Washington Post bury this at the end of an article on Iraq that spends the bulk of its print dwelling, seeingly in awe, on the tactics of an enemy? See here.

Not only does the Post bury the critically important news, but it misses the important points in the rest of its article. The lethality of attacks are largely due to an increasing number of EFP's. Yet the WP blissfully ignores that the critical point, that this implies an increasing role of Iran's theocracy in Iraq. Two, the WP seems in awe of the fact that fighters on the opposing side are capable of occaisionally conducting an ambush that involves combined small arms. That is hardly news - and certainly it is far less important news then the hard facts quoted above. So why does the WP spend the majority of its print dwelling on it? And lastly, the WP, in discussing why the summer will likely be a deadly one for U.S. forces, wholly ignores the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. That gorilla, of course, is a composite of the Democratic leadership in Congress who are looking for any excuse to claim the surge failed and justify ending the war in September. Clearly, Iran and its proxies as well as al Qaeda are attempting to help. The enemy are increasing attacks against the U.S. despite suffering tremendous casualties. Why does the WP ignore the role of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, et. al, in the death of our soldiers?

The Washington Post does a very good multimedia presentation of both a combined arms ambush of an American Special Forces led Iraqi patrol for which the A-Team Commander earned both a silver star and a bath in goat's blood:

A declassified U.S. military report describes a complex insurgent attack last December on a convoy in Iraq. "It was one ambush with three separate kill-zones," according to the report, "all of which were in communication with one another." Such ambushes are among the deadliest attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Fighters have grown skilled at sophisticated ambushes using multiple weapons — such as roadside bombs, mortars and gunfire — and also target forces aiding the fallen. Special Forces Maj. Jim Gant's nine-man U.S. military advisory team, with the call sign "Spartan," had orders to travel with more than 100 Iraqi police in 26 vehicles south from Balad to Baghdad through an area where insurgents "have complete freedom of maneuver," according to the after-action report. Gant's team had spent two months working with Iraqi police to quell sectarian violence in the Shiite town of Balad, facing resistance from al-Qaeda fighters in Sunni villages. On Dec. 11, 2006, Gant loaded his vehicles with thousands of rounds of ammunition, tried to confuse insurgents by driving north first, and requested cover from F-16 fighters, which never came. Instead, he and his men faced the heaviest ambush of Gant's 17-year-career. They pushed through the kill zones, inspired police to fight back, and used large bursts of machine-gun fire to create a "momentary impression of superior firepower," the report said. Gant, 40, was twice decorated for his actions: After the battle, Iraqi police slaughtered goats and covered his team with crimson handprints to celebrate. On May 3, he received the Silver Star for "selfless courage under fire."

See the multi-media presentation here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Would Someone Tell al Qaeda's The Islamic State Of Iraq That Its Just a Civil War

Just as Democrat after Democrat is claiming that Iraq is "just a civil war," the Islamic State of Iraq does their part to overreach and throw that carefully guarded Democratic canard into a bit of flux. The release of this jihadi video coming on the heels of the President's speech, the timing could not be worse for the Democrats - at least if it were to get any play in the MSM. The latest from the jihadis currently fighting the "civil war" in Iraq:

Al Qaeda has a new opening graphic for its propaganda tapes: the U.S. Capitol under "attack."

"The Islamic State of Iraq...March Toward Washington" reads the headline in English superimposed over a digitally created scene of the U.S. Capitol under attack in the introductory sequence of one tape released on the Internet this week.

Another from al Qaeda's "as Sahab" production arm announces "Holocaust of the Americans in the Land of Khorasan" and shows an image of the U.S. Capitol to introduce a short clip of al Qaeda fighters.

"This is a disturbing new trend," says Laura Mansfield, an Arabic expert who monitors jihadi videos on the Internet.

"Recall that in January 2006, Osama Bin Laden said that plans for attacks in the U.S. were in progress," Mansfield told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. "It may be that this new imagery is designed to motivate terrorist activity in the U.S., but it is certainly intended as a recruiting tool and perhaps intended to reassure al Qaeda's jihadi followers they haven't forgotten their goal of an al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C.," she said.

Read the entire story here. Video screen shot by ABC.

Read More...

Summary only...

Murtha Continues His Offensive Against Our Military In Support of Shared Al Qaeda & Democratic Goals

GODDAMNIT. SOME SENATORS AND CONGESSMEN WITH BALLS NEED TO GET ON THE SIX O'CLOCK NEWS AND IN THE EDITORIAL PAGES AND START ATTACKING THE PURE BULLSHIT COMING FROM THE FAR LEFT AND THIS WORTHLESS SON OF A BITCH, JACK MURTHA. THAT OR WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR WHAT LIES IN THE FUTURE. LEARN ARABIC.

Todays latest far left obscenity from Murtha:

Looking ahead to a post-veto Iraq spending bill, appropriators are looking at either a two-month or five-month bill, and House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Thursday he thinks one can be passed in two weeks.

The Senate passed the Iraq supplemental Thursday on a 51-46 vote, and President Bush is expected to veto the conference version next week.

“We want to assess it again in two months,” Murtha said. “Two months sounds good, but it’s complicated. There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much. They’re so intimidated by the White House.”

WHAT THE FUCK? "THE MILITARY HAS LIED TO US SO MUCH . . . ?" THE MILITARY IS LIEING TO AMERICA BECAUSE "THEY ARE SO INTIMIDATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE?"

We have young men and women fighting and dieing overseas today and Murtha says that they are being sacrificed for lies? WHAT AN UTTERLY WORTHLESS SON OF A BITCH. BUT THAT IS THE FAR LEFT MEME NOW. MURTHA IS NOT SAYING SOMETHING THAT HE, REID, AND OTHERS HAVE NOT ALREADY SAID BEFORE WITHOUT A SINGLE CHALLENGE.

Bottom line - we as a nation are fucked. The Democrats are cowardly hypocrites that seek power regardless of the cost to America. Indeed, many on the far left will not be happy until the U.S. is beaten into a position of weakness for the many alleged sins that they see. It is absolutely fucking suicidal and cowardly beyond measure. Yet the middle and right in Congress have proven wholly ineffectual in responding to attack after attack. FDR said that just because you constantly repeat a lie does not make it true. FDR never met the politicians of today - either the far left who repeat lies in soundbite form before every microphone they can find, nor the moderates and conservatives who sit on their asses, responding one time in one hundred to the sound bites, and then not calling the far left to account. There is no emotion. There is no outrage. No, FDR did not meet these people.

Bottom line, your grandchildren will need to learn the Koran. The immediate future we face is being written by Murtha and it is a future of Reid and Pelosi domination of Washington in 08. The future that your grandchildren will face is being written by Saudi and Yemeni suicide bombers in Iraq, by al Zawahiri from a madrasa in Pakistan's NWFP, by Mickey the Fucking Terrorist Mouse in Palestine, by Iranian proxies laying EFP's on Iraqi roads, by Saudi Arabia who is spreading the poison of Wahhabism and radical Islam throughout the world, and by Khamenei who is overseeing the development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal. These are people who cannot possibly match our might. These are people who have given nothing of any value to humanity. But, with help from Murtha and his ilk, it is they that are writing our grandchildren's future. And that is a future being written in Arabic.

We have gone from a nation of FDR, Eisenhower and Patton that fully deserved the mantle of super-power in the post World War II era to a nation of weak, narcissicistic pussies who are enjoying the benefits bought and paid for in blood by men and women far more principled then most of us will ever hope to be. Every male member of my family has served in military for as far back as I can trace my family line. And as a first, my daughter is in the Army Reserves today. And most of us have been infantry soldiers. More then a little of my families blood has been spilt in foreign lands, and there are detached limbs of my family probably still feeding the flowers in France. Until today, until I heard Murtha's assault on our military, I was very proud of that service and believed every bit of the sacrifice warranted. Murtha today is the final straw.

It is clear to me now that, with but a few exceptions, the Republicans in Congress are by and large every bit as weak and narcissicistic as the far left and, if the polls are correct, a significant majority of Americans agree with them. There is just nothing left for our military to defend. No one in Congress is listening on the left or the right. No one is beating their chest and taking on the incessant bullshit of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha. Whom do you think will call Murtha to account for this obscenity today? And is there anyone reading this who believes that General Petraeus was lying to us in his last brief to the nation, or that he will lie to us or twist facts in September? Or is the obscenity of Murtha today simply seeding the ground for the Democrat's counterargument in September?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE AMERICANS? WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE PEOPLE I AND MY FAMILY HAVE SUPPORTED FOR MORE THEN A CENTURY WITH OUR BLOOD AND SWEAT IN FOREIGN LANDS. WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU?

THE ONLY THING THAT I ASK FROM YOU IS TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST MURTHA AND HIS ILK. GET OFF YOUR OWN GODDAMN DEAD ASS AND START MAKING OUR IDIOT REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS RESPONSIVE. THAT WILL FULFILL YOUR COMMITTMENT TO PROTECTING YOUR COUNTRY FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU AND YOUR PROGENY.

I have no problem with reasoned arguments about Iraq and what to do there. But there are no such reasoned arguments in Congress. There are weak kneed republicans maintaining silence. There are Murtha, Pelosi and Reid and a host of Democrats now controlled by the far left of their party who are speaking in sound bites stating just the most outrageous and outlandish untruths - for example, "General Petraeus said that no military solution is possible in Iraq, therefore we need to pull our military out." WHAT PURE UTTER FUCKING BULLSHIT. BUT WHERE IS THE RESPONSE. WHY ARE THE PEOPLE WE ELECTED AS LEADERS SITTING WITH THEIR THUMBS UP THEIR ASSES AND LETTING THIS HAPPEN?

WHY ARE NOT THE FIRST WORDS IN RESPONSE FROM SOME REPULICAN SITTING NEXT TO CHUCKIE SHUMER ON RUSSERT "WHAT PURE BULL. YOU ARE DELIBERATELY LIEING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR POLITICAL GAIN. YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A WOTHLESS POLITICAL ANIMAL."

Ladies and gentlemen, just like al Qaeda in Iraq who is getting their asses handed to them by U.S. and locals in Iraq today, we are down to the end game. The only way we can possibly lose to the likes of Islamic militants is if we choose to do so as a nation. That's it. And I fully agree with Bernard Lewis, the one man in a position to understand all the ramifications of such a loss, that the change it will work in the dynamics of radical Islam and the ramifications for America will be deep and long lasting. If that is acceptable to you, so be it. You are a cowardly fucking idiot not worthy of the freedom that others have bought for you in blood, but so be it. If it is not acceptable to you, yet you sit on your ass not doing anything, then you are a part of the problem. This is it folks. Either get energized and start having come to Jesus meetings with your elected representatives or get fucked and enjoy the next few years at the expense of the future and all that our forefathers have worked to produce. Your call.

I apologize for the use of expletives. I try to refrain from them except on the rare occasion when they are warranted. One occasion is today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Murtha & Pelosi Getting Dirtier At The Trough (Update: Add Republicans Too)

More news is coming out that sheds a harsh light on Murtha's antics in the House in regards to the proposed 23 million in pork he wants to keep the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) alive in his district. This is the same earmark over which Murtha threatened Congressman Mike Rogers. See here. And it throws an equally harsh light on the descent of Pelosi's Congress into the muck and mire that she promised to clean up.

The House Intelligence Committee notified all members of a March 23 deadline date for submitting ear mark certification letters proposing additions to the House Intelligence budget request. By House rules, a copy of the certification letter was to be provided both to the Committee Chairman and to the ranking Republican on the Committee, Rep. Pete Hoeksra.

Murtha submitted his earmark certification letter for the NDIC five weeks late on the day prior to Committee hearings on the budget. He failed to provide a copy to the ranking Republican on the Committee. Not surprisingly, these acts of Murtha, coupled with, among other things, Murtha's threats to Rep. Rogers over challenges to this pork barrel project and Pelosi's threat to overturn House rules near two centuries old in order to marginalize the Republican minority, have led the Republicans to call foul. Not only has Pelosi failed to run "the most ethical House in history," as she promised in the 06 campaign, but things have taken a turn for the worse. Earmarks have only become less transparent and accountable, and on top of that, "there is a growing pattern of abuses on the part of Democrats" of the House rules. Its just not getting any print in the MSM.

As to Rep. Rogers and his complaint against threats by Murtha over the NDIC earmark:

[Rogers] introduced a privileged resolution Monday night reprimanding Murtha for the threat, but Democrats postponed a vote on the measure. Democrats have a 48-hour window to decide whether the resolution’s claims are valid, which in turn would allow an hour of debate and a vote. One Democratic source said that a vote could come Tuesday.

Read the entire story here.

Update: While the criticism of Murtha and Pelosi stand, it is also true that Republicans have not given up at the trough either. The Hill is reporting that 8 billion in earmarks have been approved as part of Murtha's Defense Appropriations bill, and that a full 40% of that is going to fund pet pork of Republican legislatiors. Eight billion would fund a lot of boots on the ground in Iraq, alleviating the strain we are putting on our soldiers. It would fund a lot of health care for soldiers missing limbs and suffering brain injuries from concussive force. Not a dime of this 8 billion is being spent appropriately, and beyond that, some of it is clearly being misspent to fund projects that our military does not want:

One of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-Calif.) favorite requests, the Sea-Fighter project (also known as X-Craft), built by L3 Communications Titan Group, made it into the bill. Hunter, the committee’s ranking member, requested $22 million for the project. Last year, Hunter added $25.7 million despite the Navy’s reluctance to spend money on the project, according to a Congress Daily report.

Read the entire sordid story here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Former Sen. Bob Kerry On Democrats & The Iraq War

Former Democratic Senator from Nebraska and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerry has authored an article in today's Wall St. Journal taking his party to task for their unrealistic position on Iraq:

. . . Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

. . . No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

. . . The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

Read the entire article here. I agree with Senator Kerry to a point. Certainly we cannot abandon Iraq. But as to Jim Webb's philosophy, how we deny a safe haven to al Qaeda without boots on the ground in a foreign country offering such safe haven is simply mystifying. What Jim Webb and Senator Kerry promise us in that regard is a mirage with which we can ill afford the time to experiment. With nuclear proliferation in the awning, the penalty for pursuing ineffectual and half hearted policies simply to cater to the far left of this country is potentially suicidal. And it is likely to lead to much greater loss of life when we are left with no choice but to use overwhelming force in self defense. I think the warning of Bernard Lewis, made but a few days ago, is quite appropriate to restate here:

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment [that the U.S. does not have the will to successfully contest the Islamists] was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Read More...

Summary only...

Summer "Reid Pelosi" Offensive Expected By Al Qaeda & Iran

No surprises here. The Guardian is reporting that U.S. intelligence sources believe Iran is significantly increasing its ties with al Qaeda and is priming its own proxy forces in Iraq for major operations this summer designed to kill as many innocent civilians and U.S. forces as possible. The purpose of course is to give Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic presidential candidates the grist they need to be able to force the long threatened retreat of U.S. forces from Iraq:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government.

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Iran- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."

Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.

US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Iran has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.

Tehran's strategy to discredit the US surge and foment a decisive congressional revolt against Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to the Shia south, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Syrian-backed Sunni Arab groups and al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Iran was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.

"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Iran is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British difficulties. Their co-conspirator is Syria which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.

Any US decision to retaliate against Iran on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.

Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit back hard wherever it was challenged by Iranian proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five alleged members of the Revolutionary Guard's al-Quds force detained in Irbil in January. Despite strenuous protests from Tehran, which claims the men are diplomats, they have still not been released.

"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."

The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq.

"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Syrian territory, he said.

Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile Iranian activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.

"Iran is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iran for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.

In trying to force an American retreat, Iran's hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for the US that would reduce Washington's regional influence while increasing Tehran's own.

But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said.

Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US welcomed the chance to talk to Iran, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with force protection in Iraq," he said. But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that Iran's behaviour could be modified, the official claimed: "Last winter they were literally getting away with murder."

But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Iranian agents and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf and UN security council resolutions imposing sanctions had given Tehran pause, he said.

Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said.

A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."

Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Tehran recently, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."

Read the entire story here. This leads to several issues:

1. Where is our leadership and why are we not hearing and being prepared for this through formal speeches?

2. Where is the MSM on this issue? Why is this not the centerpiece of questioning for Democratic political leaders and Democratic Presidential candidates? This makes a mockery of any claims that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Why are Reid and Pelosi not being challenged on this?

3. What plans do we have to make life so painful for Ahmedinejad and Khamenei that they rethink their plans. It seems fairly clear that their have been daily acts of war by Iran ongoing for some time now in Iraq. Why is much more not being done to hold Iran responsible or to respond in kind? That is a complete failure of leadership, not to mention a suicidal invitation to increasing acts of terrorism and sabotage by Iran. Why are they not losing assets - civilian and otherwise - on a massive scale in Iraq? Why are commanders of the Revolutionary Guard not dropping dead of mysterious causes in Iran? Why are their ships not disappearing after leaving port?

I sincerely hope that the talks that are soon to occur between the U.S. and Iran on security in Iraq are much more of the "read the riot act" variety rather then going, hat in hand to Khaemei and asking for support. I fear the latter.

As to the above suggestion that Iran is taking a chance by driving the U.S. from Iraq too soon, I do not believe that to be an accurate projection of Iranian strategy. Turkish involvement is only threatened in Kurdistan. Possible Saudi involvement would be limited to majority to Sunni areas. It would seem to me that Iran would be more then happy to see the Shia sections of Iraq seperated from the whole and come under Iranian dominance. In this light, their strategy to take advantage of the opening provided by the Democrats and led by Reid and Pelosi makes complete sense.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lieberman Slams All Sides of the Senate On Iraq

Senator Joe Lieberman has posted his remarks at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He continues to be possibly the only eloquent defender of remaining in Iraq in either party. And he has appropriate words of both warning and criticism for the Democratic presidential hopefuls who would abandon Iraq to gain the Presidency and the moderate Republicans who are are dispensing with their principles as they look towards the polls:

. . . Now, I know there are some who are probably wondering—what is a nice Independent Democrat from Connecticut doing at a Republican event like this?

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year... And as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.

In all seriousness, many of you in this room stood with me last year through the long journey up a winding road that was my 2006 reelection campaign. You came to my side without regard for party affiliation, and you stayed there even after I ran as an Independent but said I would caucus with the Democrats. Your non-partisanship in my race is a model for what our politics should be. I thank you personally and deeply for it. I could not have won without it. And I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to vindicate your confidence.

We gather at a critical time for the future of our country. The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency—although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.

Part of the disagreement we face over Iraq comes down to a genuine difference of opinion.

On the one hand, there are those who believe, as I do, that the struggle against Islamist extremism really is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus—our commander in Iraq—recently said, Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamist extremism.

On the other hand, there are those who reject this view—who genuinely believe that the threat of Islamist extremism is overstated, or that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, or that the war there is lost, or not worth fighting to win.

It is my deeply held conviction that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong—and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the United States, for Iraq, and for the entire Middle East, including Israel and our moderate Arab allies.

Let there be no doubt—an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran... the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today. It would vindicate the hope of our enemies that America is weak and that we can be driven to retreat by terrorism, and it would confirm the fear of our friends—not only in Iraq, but throughout the world—that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot claim to be tough on terrorism while demanding that our military withdraw from Iraq, because it is the terrorists—particular Al Qaeda—that our military is fighting in Iraq.

You cannot claim to be committed to defeating Al Qaeda, while demanding that we abandon the heart of the Middle East to Al Qaeda.

And you cannot claim to be tough on Iran, while demanding the very thing that the mullahs want most of all—the retreat of the American military from the Middle East in defeat, leaving a vacuum that Iran will rush to fill.

I recognize that this war has been controversial, and there are those who oppose it on principle. I respect that.

But too much of the debate we are having today about withdrawal from Iraq has little or nothing to do with principle, or with reality in Iraq.

It is about politics and partisanship here in Washington.

For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it. If the war is going badly, it is bad for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that.

For many Republicans, the unpopularity of this war and this President has begun to shake their will. They say that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because the American people tell the pollsters they want out. If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.

Republicans in Congress delude themselves if they think they will be helping either themselves, their party, or their country if they now attempt to wash their hands of Iraq, out of a sudden sense of political anxiety.

Democrats in Congress delude themselves if they think they will not be held accountable for the bloody consequences of the retreat from Iraq they seek.

The fact is, a loss to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq would be devastating to our security. These are fateful days and critical decisions we are making about Iraq. We must make them with our eye on the safety of America's next generation, not the outcome of America's next election.

It is to the everlasting credit of President Bush that in the war against Islamist extremism he has shown the courage and steadfastness to stand against the political passions of the moment.

I have never hesitated to express disagreement with the President on any issue when I felt he was wrong—and I have criticized his administration many times for the serious mistakes I believe it made in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

But let me tell you this: I believe that each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not believe that decisions about war should be driven by poll numbers. And each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not confuse what is popular with what is right for our security as a nation. The public opinion polls may not reflect this today, but I believe history will tomorrow.

My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing.

If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.

But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.

That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East. It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.

Will this be the moment in history when America gives up—when Al Qaeda breaks our will, when our enemies surge forward, when we turn our backs on our friends and begin a long retreat from our principles and promise as a nation?

Or will this be the moment when America steps forward, when we pull together, when we hold fast to the courage of our convictions, when—with a new strategy, and a new commander on the ground—we begin to turn the tide toward victory in this long and difficult war?

I know that we can rise above the anger and smallness of our politics. I know we can rise to the greatness that this moment demands of us.

The question is—will we choose to do so?

I would like to close today by sharing with you a story from my last visit to Iraq a few months ago. It was in Anbar province in western Iraq—the center of the insurgency—a part of the country that conventional wisdom last year dismissed as hopeless.

In fact, on September 11, 2006, the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting that even the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq had concluded that Anbar was "lost," and our position there was "beyond repair."

I was in Anbar last December, on a forward operating base just outside Ramadi, the capital of the province. As one of the briefings with our military commanders ended, a colonel who had been sitting in the back of the room came up to me. He said something that I carry with me to this day—something that I hope you will carry with you as well.

He said: "Sir, I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here, we want to finish this fight. And we know we can win it."

Today, five months later, Anbar has been dramatically transformed. Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and—yes—no less than the New York Times reports that we have turned the corner there.

My friends, now is not the time for despair. Now is the time for resolve.

Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion. Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle America's voters have always honored.

I ask you to plead with every member of Congress you can in the days and weeks ahead—

Do not surrender to hopelessness.

Do not succumb to defeat.

Do not give in to fear.

Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America.

Believe, like that colonel, in why we are fighting in Iraq, and know, as he and his soldiers know, that we can and must win there."

This is from Lieberman's website. It is just one more in a string of excellent speeches by Lieberman on the Iraq issue. But I think we all need to e-mail Senator Lieberman and remind him that he holds the key to shutting down Harry Reid and Chuckie Schumer today.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Read More...

Summary only...

Of Dem Presidential Candidates & the Senate Vote to Defund Iraq War

The Good: Both the Washington Post and the NYT are reporting on the failure of the Senate to pass a bill today that would have ended funding for the Iraq war. This from the NYT:

Democrats who are highly critical of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy suffered a stinging defeat today when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a measure to cut off money for the military campaign by March 31, 2008.

The measure, in the form of an amendment to an unrelated water-projects bill, was effectively rejected, 67 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting against it in a procedural vote. Sixty “yes” votes were required for the measure to advance, so it fell short by 31 votes.

Though the vote was largely symbolic, the outcome was nevertheless significant, in that it underscored the divisions among Democrats over how to oppose the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, as well as widespread fear of being seen as undercutting American troops.

Today’s vote was preceded by an emotional debate. “Too many blank checks have been given to this president,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, who was a sponsor of the cutoff measure along with Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

“As we speak, more than 150,000 brave American troops are in the middle of a violent civil war,” Mr. Feingold said. “Meanwhile, the president has repeatedly made it clear that nothing — not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of the members of both parties — will discourage him from pursuing a war that has no end in sight.”

“Congress cannot wait for the president to change course,” Mr. Feingold said. “We must change the course ourselves.”

The Bad: Harry Reid claims that he is still not discouraged in his campaign to end the war by hook or crook, and the majority of Senate Democrats per this vote now support an immediate withdraw. Harry Reid continues his Orwellian doublespeak with calls for "fully funding" the soldiers with calls for ending the mission for which the funding is needed. And according to Congressman Steny Hoyer, it appears that Congress may adjourn for Memorial Day without passing the funding measure. Those in this country who care will be honoring our soldiers in harms way while the Dems take a much needed vacation from the trials of subterfuge. And yet again, there is no indication that in debate over this measure, anyone brought up the only issue that matters - the blank check we will be signing if we retreat from Iraq - the one that dwarfs by orders of magnitude the cost of securing and stabilizing Iraq.

The Really Ugly: Obama and Clinton both voted for the bill, as did all other Democratic Presidential hopefuls in order to establish their bona fides with the far left, but then Hillary tried to muddy the water just enough to be able to claim that she really wasn't voting to end the war. This is dissimulation, Hillary style:

Two candidates for their party’s nomination in 2008, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, said for the first time on Tuesday that they would support legislation to curtail major combat operations in Iraq by March 31, 2008, cutting off financing for all but a limited mission of American forces. Both of them were among the 29 who voted “yes” on the procedural vote today.

“We are doing everything we can to influence the president to change the war in Iraq,” Senator Clinton said shortly after the vote. “It’s very important for us to do all we can to try to express the will of the American people.”

But when asked by a reporter whether she supported the underlying idea of the Feingold bill, to cut off financing for major combat operations next spring, she declined to say yes or no. One day earlier, a spokesman said the senator supported the legislation.

“I’m not going to speculate on what I’ll be voting on in the future,” she said today.

How ridiculous and craven can you get? Though I must admit, this is nothing more then Hillary acting consistent with with her more then a little inconsistent past. Raise your hand if you want to trust any Democrat, let alone Hillary, with this nation's national security? They have no principals that go beyond the ballot box and the polls.

Read the entire story from the NYT and from the Wash. Post.

Read More...

Summary only...