Strolling the Streets of Ramadi: Must Read in NYTIMES

I don't usually recommend reading from the NY Times... but today is different. Please read the entire article here.

The basic import of the article has two aspects. The first is the report of the turning tide against Al Qaeda in Iraq. This has been reported on previously and recorded on this blog.

The second is the insinuation that the only goal in Iraq is stability. This is patently false. As I have detailed on this blog, the key factor for success in the war on terror is eliminating state sponsorship of terror. Since Iran and Syria are the two leading, remaining state sponsors the U.S. has a responsibility to do everything within its power to terminate that state sponsorship. Iran and Syria have the most to gain by the U.S. failing in, or even prematurely evacuating, Iraq. We must stay the course or we will be forced to return to even more desperate situation.

But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack writing in the July 30th, 2007 edition of the New York Times.

Hillary the Instrument Confesses to her Socialist Beliefs

During Monday's CNN/YouTube Debacle, Hillary Clinton made a startling confession of something I have believed true for many years.

This was the question:

Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I’m from Irvine, California. I have a question for Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal"? And would you use this word to describe yourself? Thank you.

Senator Clinton's Response was:

You know, Rob -- (laughter) -- you know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their families. So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics. (Applause.)

See the entire transcript here.

So the junior senator from NY associates herself with early 20th century progressives? I encourage interested readers to investigate the progressive movement a good place to start is Wikipedia.

One interesting thing in the Wikipedia file is this passage:

Socialism (in the strict or radical sense) aims to establish a fundamentally different society from the one that currently exists in most countries. While there are different schools of socialism, which often tend to have differing views of the ideal socialist society, some general examples of socialist concepts are: The desire to abolish capitalism, to place the means of production under the collective ownership of the people, and to achieve a very high degree of economic and political equality. Socialists argue that capitalism exploits the working class, and they desire for workers to play a vital role in moving society from capitalism to socialism (either by rising up in a revolution [ citation needed ] or general strike, or by voting en masse for socialist political parties).
In contrast, by definition progressivism aims to achieve gradual social change, and most progressives are outright opposed to any form of radical revolution. Nevertheless, the end goals are the same; the only difference is the pace at which the change occurs.

Progressive ideology was responsible for some interesting, some might argue critical, reforms in the U.S. political system. None-the-less, Wikipedia is correct, it was and still is an ideology based in marxist socialism.

Another disturbing element in progressive ideology finds an outlet through Senator Clinton - the belief that science can produce a "correct" solution and those with knowledge have a duty to impose those "correct" solutions on society. Back to Wikipedia:

The reformers of the Progressive Era advocated the Efficiency Movement. Progressives assumed that anything old was encrusted with inefficient and useless practices. A scientific study of the problem would enable experts to discover the "one best solution." ...Progressives shared a common belief in the ability of science, technology and disinterested expertise to identify all problems and come up with the one best solution. ...Many progressives argued that governments would function better if they were placed under the direction of trained, professional administrators. ...Many progressives sought to make government more rational through centralized decision-making. ...The progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government.

This world view permeates the Clinton agenda. See for example her desire to appoint a government office for "Sorting out the competing claims and to the best of the scientists' abilities, telling us what to believe." See also her desire to create a service academy of higher education, modeled on the military academies, to produce a new breed of professional administrator/bureaucrat. This should disturb all Americans. For one example see her speech here.

Finally, there is this on Wikipedia:

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations.

enough said.

Some things the Dem's Got Right in the YouTube Debacle

I have 35 years of being an instrument

Hillary Clinton (D - New York)

you know, it is a word (i.e. liberal) that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York).

We were asked about -- that we’re united. We’re not united. I’m not united on many of their views.

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska)

Democrats Adopt Hagel

A stunning development during Monday's CNN YouTube Debate was the adoption of Senator Chuck Hagel (R - Nebraska) by the Democrats.

Asked

"If you had to pick any Republican member of Congress or Republican governor to be your running mate, who would it be?

the responses were:

At the risk of hurting his reputation -- and it will hurt him -- but I would pick Chuck Hagel,

Joe Biden (D - Delaware).

Actually, I think Chuck Hagel is a good choice.

John Edwards (D - North Carolina)

The most interesting question is WHY HAGEl? He is not a liberal or even a moderate. See the ratings here and here.

There are far more moderate Republicans with which they could establish a working relationship including: Lincoln Chaffee (I - Rhode Island), Olympia Snow (R - Maine), and Susan Collins (R - Maine).

Okay, one reason might be electoral politics. A running mate that might help flip a red state or two to the blue column. But if this were the case, the choice might be Senator Hagel's far more moderate partner from Nebraska Senator Bill Nelson or even Senator John McCain (R - Arizona).

No, there is only one reason to choose Hagel: He is war vet who has broken with the President and his Party on the war.

It is clear that the war is THE ISSUE in this campaign.

YouTube Debacle: Backwards and Double Backwards

And so I say we achieve strength through peace.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio) inviting a massacre.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) explaining how 100 year old ideology is "progressive".

More women are affected by the minimum wage than men are affected by the minimum wage. I have been the most aggressive -- in fact, I would challenge every Democrat on this stage today to commit to raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by the year 2012.

Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) promising to nearly double the wages of high school students.

QUESTION: I’m Gabriel. And I’m Connie, from a refugee camp near Darfur.
Before you answer this question, imagine yourself the parent of one of these children. What action do you commit to that will get these children back home to a safe Darfur and not letting it be yet another empty promise?

COOPER: Governor Richardson, what are you going to do? Would you commit American troops?

RICHARDSON: I was at that refugee camp. And there was a refugee, a woman who came up to me. She’d been raped, her husband had been killed and she said, "When is America going to start helping?" This is what I would do: It’s diplomacy.

Governor Bill Richardson (D - New Mexico) vowing to do everything possible to not help those in Darfur.

If we get U.N. peacekeeping troops authorized for Darfur, there’s some already there, it’ll take six months for them to get there. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region. America needs to respond with diplomacy, with diplomatic leadership.

Governor Bill Richardson (D - New Mexico) explaining his answer on not helping by calculating how many more people will die while he's not helping.

You don’t understand -- they don’t understand. They think we can save them. And guess what? We can. Twenty-five hundred American troops

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) showing more courage than the Governor by offering to send an insignificant number of troops.

The problem goes a little bit deeper than that. It’s because we haven’t owned up to our responsibilities to a sense of global governance.

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska) explaining how Darfur is our fault because we haven't instituted a proper global government.

I agree completely that what we need to do is start acting instead of talking. That means accelerating the United Nations peacekeeping forces along with the African Union. It means moving more quickly on divestment and sanctions on the Sudanese government, including trying to use the diplomacy to get China involved. And, finally, it does mean a no-fly zone. We can do it in a way that doesn’t endanger humanitarian relief.

COOPER: How about American troops on the ground?

CLINTON: I think NATO has to be there with the no-fly zone, and I think that only the United States can provide the logistical support and the air lift to make a no-fly zone and the actual delivery of humanitarian aid work.

COOPER: Just in the spirit of trying to get the answer, does that mean no American ground troops?

CLINTON: American ground troops I don’t think belong in Darfur at this time. I think we need to focus on the United Nations peacekeeping troops and the African Union troops. We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we’re losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) explaining that U.S troops cannot help in Darfur because we are too busy figuring out to make them lose in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up, are we watching the same blankin’ war? I certainly wasn’t a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now?

OBAMA: At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. ... So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight.

Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) explaining that we have to pull out because, well, we have to pull out.

I’m the only one that’s offered a political solution. And it literally means separate the parties; give them jurisdiction in their own areas; have a decentralized government, a federal system. No central government will work.

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) explaining that we divide Iraq so that Syria, Iran, and Turkey will not have to do it themselves.

And here’s how we can do it. It doesn’t take legislation. That’s a phony excuse to say that you don’t have the votes. We appropriated $97 billion a month ago. We should tell President Bush, no more funds for the war, use that money to bring the troops home, use it to bring the troops home.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio) explaining we must leave because it will save us some money.

It’s because we’re bogged down there at $10 billion a month, we’ve lost our moral leadership in the world. No one listens to us when it comes to foreign policy. That has to change in this country. That’s the difference here.

Senator Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) joining Rep. Kucinich in trying to save us some money.

More Evidence that Democrats are Wrong on Iraq

Multiple stories printed in liberal media outlets demonstrate that the Democrat's intentions to force a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq are dangerously misguided.

The first comes from the Washington Post in an article written by Michael Gerson who starts his article with this:

One of the most infuriating problems in Iraq seems to generate precious little fury. In a kind of malicious chemistry experiment, hostile powers are adding accelerants to Iraq's frothing chaos. Iran smuggles the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers. Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis in markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage. This is not a complete explanation for the difficulties in Iraq. Poor governance and political paralysis would exist if Iran and Syria meddled or not. But without these outside influences, Tony Blair told me recently, the situation in Iraq would be "very nearly manageable."

Next a report published by the Los Angeles Times written by an Iraqi official, Mowaffak Rubaie (Iraq's national security advisor). Rubaie writes:

We also recognize that we have a long way to go. In a number of "hot spots," we have not yet turned the tide, largely because of foreign interference. The most deadly weapons and explosives, including the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, enter Iraq from Iran. Ninety percent of the suicide bombers are foreigners; half of them are Saudi nationals; and the majority of these bombers enter Iraq through Syria. Nearly 90% of their victims are innocent Iraqi civilians. This cannot continue. We must persuade our neighbors to prevent terrorists and meddlers from using their territories as entry points into Iraq.

Both articles should be read in their entirety.

These support the reasoning I have offered on this blog that the main issue is Iran and Syria not Iraq. These two trouble makers are the leading state sponsors of terror. They are working to defeat the U.S. in Iraq in hopes of installing a government in that country submissive to, and complicit with, their regional and international ambitions.

A U.S. withdrawal plays directly into their hands, strengthening both regimes, but particularly the Iranians. This must not be allowed to happen. The United States must remain, at least resolute, if not on the strategic offensive, to counter and ultimately eliminate this poisonous situation.

But instead of considering national security and the war on terror, liberal elitists like Eleanor Clift writing in Newsweek, reduce the war to domestic electoral dynamics:

The operative emotion is anger. The voters are almost as furious with the Democrats for their inability to end the Iraq War as they are with President Bush for prolonging it. ... Democrats needed to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the war, even if they are.

I hope my fellow citizens will awaken to the strategic imperative and not allow the Democrats to throw victory to our enemies.

Memo to Hillary: There is a Chain-of-Command

As usual Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - New York) and her left wing backers have things backward.

The Junior Senator from New York is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Apparently, in May she requested breifings on Pentagon plans to withdraw from Iraq. Of course, such a plan presupposes that such plans exist. The Senator's request went forward despite testimony before her committee by the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, that no order to develop such plans had been issued.

So we see the following responses from
DailyKos

Clinton's question was more than appropriate.

and TalkLeft

Edelman seems not to know that the Pentagon is not the commanding officer of the Senate. His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior.

and the Senator Herself:

Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge. She said Edelman had ducked her questions and "instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning." "Undersecretary Edelman has his priorities backward," Clinton wrote, calling his claim "outrageous and dangerous." She repeated her request for a briefing - classified if necessary - on the issue of end-of-war planning. The senator's spokesman Philippe Reines said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."

Predictable, but also dead wrong. This is political grandstanding at worst. TalkLeft has it precisely backward. The Undersecretary of Defense does not take orders from the Senate, let alone a Junior Senator on the Armed Services Committee. The Constitutional Role of the Senate is OVERSIGHT. That doesn't mean issuing orders or demanding reports that, in testimony before Congress, do not exist. If the Senator wants to criticize the President for his planning or lack thereof, that is fair game... POTUS is where the buck stops. But the Undersecretary takes orders from SECDEF and POTUS.

As an aspiring candidate for the Presidency, you'd think Mrs. Clinton would have more respect for the Chain-of-Command than this.

No Surprise: Unbalanced reporting by the Washington Post

A story bylined by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks of the Washington Post pretends to assess what would happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq. See the story as printed in the Seattle Times here.

The story is unbalanced and unjust. Here's why.

DeYoung and Ricks start off summarizing the result of some war gaming:

f U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold:

• Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province.

• Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups.

• The Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.

In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

These authors then go on to suggest that the President's statements on the issue lack merit:

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaida or Iran — or both — would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces. ... What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaida sanctuary in Iraq. ... Bush, however, sees that as the primary risk of withdrawal.

The principle that should be applied is this: ALL GUESSES ABOUT THE FUTURE ARE WRONG!

That's right -- Wrong. If humans were able to predict the future accurately we'd all be rich. The fact is, no one has figured out how to reasonably predict the future -- NOT EVEN RON PAUL. Estimates from military war games are valuable, but they are often wrong. In this case, what are the chances that U.S. military officers understand the thinking among the Ayatollahs in Tehran to accurately guess the actions that regime might take? (my answer -- slim to none).

The authors do cite a White House official. They should have payed more attention to what that official told them:

However, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy cautions that "we've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities."

The theses of this article should have been that there is no consensus on what would happen in Iraq post-withdrawal. There are many opinions... let me see, what is that old saw about opinions?

More Treachery from Senators Reid, Levin, and Schumer

After running the Senate through the night, Democratic Leadership immediately began accusing Republicans of obstructionism. Well, obstruction of defeat is no vice.

The "Lose the War on Terror" crowd continues to misinform the public and play politics with the most serious issue of our time. These men and women, who are largely the sons and daughters of America's Greatest Generation, are bringing disgrace on themselves and their country. See the stories here, here, and here.

Here is quote in the Fox News story in which Senator Carl Levin (D - Michigan) repeats the BIG LIE

"Just about everybody agrees there's no military solution to Iraq," Levin said. If Republicans get their way and block this change in mission, "We will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue that just about every American has strong feelings on."

What Senator Levin didn't tell you is that the vote was on an amendment he sponsored which would schedule our retreat in Iraq. An amendment which is being filibustered by the Republican minority in the Senate. And appropriately so.

What the Democrats also aren't telling you is that they are trying to have it both ways. For example, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) proposes to impose such a retreat, BUT end the retreat if the Iraqi government passes the legislation that the Junior Senator from Illinois believes to be appropriate.

Here is the full text of the Levin, Reed, at al Amendment:

SA 2087. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith,Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.

(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:

(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.

(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.

(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.

(d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.



SA 2088. Mr. REED proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2087 proposed by Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Durbin) to the amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military actvities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, as follows:

At the end of the amendment add the following:

This section shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's enactment.

Thus, the withdrawal is hinged to a diplomatic effort under the UN but allows U.S. forces to continue to operate in Iraq with substantially the same mission they have today -- only at substantially reduced numbers. The most objectional part of this amendment is that it is the Congress directing the Secretary of Defense on the subject of troop disposition and tasking during a properly declared war. Thus, this amendment seeks to tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, nay to cut him out of the chain of command, during the execution of his constitutional mandated role of executing a war that congress authorized. Godspeed the minority who oppose this unconstitutional piece of usurpation.

Time Magazine got it right...

After all, picture this: More and more Republicans peel away from President Bush's strategy in Iraq until the day comes, maybe this September, maybe next year, when Democrats find themselves with a veto-proof majority to force Bush to commit to a timeline for withdrawing the troops in Iraq. Democrats celebrate, the troops are starting to come home, and then ... what exactly? ... So, while Democrats make a show tonight of unfolding cots to nap and debate through the night, it is important to remember that they are doing this more to convince their Republican colleagues to sway Bush, rather than out of any real desire to inherit the war themselves.

Warner-Lugar Revisited

Yesterday I wrote about the illogical amendment proposed by the respected Senators John Warner (R - Virginia) and Richard Lugar (R - Indiana). That opinion still holds, the amendment is illogical in its conclusions and recommendations.

The good news is that these two Senators actually do get it. I was beginning to think that Republicans on the national stage had taken complete leave of their senses. In reality, the proposed amendment presents a dynamic argument for the U.S.'s vital interests with respect to Iraq. It clearly links the situation there to the Global War on terror, it finds that the Iraqi government is not capable of sustaining itself, that the threat of over-throw by would be tyrants and dictators is real, and that Iran would be significantly emboldened. In fact, should a shia fundamentalist tyrant operating with the support of Iran and Hezbollah achieve control in Iraq, the entire Middle East could be embroiled in warfare. Such a scenario would compel the U.S. to recommit troops to the region. This time in greater numbers and in a far more complex situation.

This understanding is vital in terms of deciding the appropriate role of U.S. forces in that region. As I have written before on this blog... the real decision facing the U.S. is about Iran. Any decision taken that doesn't have Iran in view is mistaken.

The DailyKos has called the amendment goofy. But for the wrong reason. mcjoan writing on Kos says that the amendment's call for a new war authorization is bizarre. In reality, the Senators are trying some political gamesmanship. As Senator Warner stated:

"It is my sincere hope that this amendment provides a basis for a bipartisan consensus,"

Thus, it is clear to this observer that Warner-Lugar is trying to seduce Democrats to support the bill by allowing them to (1) revisit, and perhaps change, their original war vote and (2) vote for a measure that at least calls for planning the withdrawal for later implementation. Democrats should be attracted to this because a plan would give them another hammer to use on the President. The measure would likely be vetoed in any event.

I quite agree with SoccerDad that republican leadership has done a poor job articulating our position, our strategy, and in building-support for victory. I can't help but feel that Senators Warner and Lugar would better serve the country by taking their case, outlined in the proposed amendment as summarized above and in yesterday's post, directly to the people. Isn't that what leadership is about? Maybe they could change a few minds?

As discussed here the two will be on ABC's This Week on Sunday. It should be interesting to see what softballs George throws at them. I hope they stop by FOX for an old fashioned grilling.

Talking Out Both Sides of Their Mouths: The Warner-Lugar Amendment

Senators John Warner (R - Virginia) and Richard Lugar (R - Indiana) introduced an amendment on Iraq today H.R. 2208. The text of the amendment shows the incompetence that group think can produce. Consider the following quotes from the text, First:

Many leaders of the Iraqi government and sectarian factions have not demonstrated a commitment to the concept of a pluralist government; nor have they demonstrated the ability to control many sub-factions within their sects.

and:

the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future.

Anything to disagree with? Let's look at an earlier quote in the amendment:

(1) The United States has vital national security interests in Iraq and the Middle East region. (2) These vital interests include the prevention of Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for weapons of mass destruction; the prevention of acts of violence and disorder that upset wider regional stability, undermining friendly governments, expanding refugee flows, impairing the international shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, or destroying key oil production or
transportation facilities; the prevention of Iranian domination of or aggression toward nations or areas of the Middle East, which would have potentially serious consequences for weapons proliferation, terrorism, the security of Israel, and the stability of friendly governments; and the protection of U.S. credibility in the region and throughout the world. {emphasis added}

So far so good. We have an interest, not the least of which is preventing Iran from extending its fundamentalist, terror-supporting regime. A real possibility is a coup d'etat by someone like Al-Sadr backed by the Iranians. What does Warner-Lugar require (in addition to some reporting to congress...):

The President, in close coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and) other senior military leaders shall, as a matter of prudence, consider all options and initiate planning to: (1) transition U.S. combat forces from policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq; (2) redeploy or reallocate those forces in a responsible manner as conditions permit; (3) refocus U.S. military operations on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in Iraq
and its associates, protecting U.S. forces and facilities, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security; and (4) address the findings of the Independent Assessment of the Iraqi Security Forces as provided by PL 110-28 to include decision points for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq that are based upon the readiness of Iraqi Security Forces.

Or in short words, plan to get out!

Doesn't that take the cake. We have an interest in seeing Iraq not spiral into a new terror supporting state, we believe that this is very likely, so let's start planning to leave!

Unbelievable!

Senators Warner and Lugar are two of the most respected members of the Senate with respect to foreign and military affairs. They must do better than this...

Hillary's War Policy: WIMP OUT

This morning's New York Daily News published a column co-authored by Senator Robert Byrd (D - West Virginia) and Presidential Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York).
You can read the entire column here

The main point of the article is that tried and true Democratic talking point:

Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.

This argument is specious and dangerous. The Democrats, if successful, will only hand Iraq over to Iran... read my posts here, here, and here.

The principal question remains, when will the Administration, the Republican Leadership in the Congress, and or the Republican Presidential Candidates have the gumption to call this cowardice what it is: a plan for handing victory in the war on terror to the shia branch of Islam, led by the murderous gang of Ayatollah's in Iran.

Senator's Byrd and Clinton also mis-characterize the situation in Iraq and the success of the surge:

According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war.

For more realistic assessment by someone who is on the ground in Iraq read the interview in todays' New York Post here

But beyond that, the implication of these two Senators argument is that body count is the way to count victory. This is heinous, obnoxious, and cowardly. The idea behind the surge is to take the fight to the enemy, clear them out, and then hold the ground. This means there will be more troops in the country, increasing the number in harm's way. It also means more combat in which brave young soldiers will be asked to sacrifice their lives for liberty.

Senator Byrd and Clinton don't believe in these principles. To them, no fight is worth having. They would rather surrender freedom than fight and die. The problem with pacifism is: if there is nothing you are willing to fight for, then there is nothing that you value.

So the question for Senator Clinton is: How much do you value freedom?

The Weight of the Nation

At LEFT: President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign:

BELOW: President Bush in July of 2007 (AP photo published at www.foxnews.com)

The office certainly has an effect on the human.

In Denial: Mike Gravel

The following quote is from an article written by former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska) and published July 5th. You can read the full article here or here.

Hillary, as an active supporter of the war, you are one of many Americans who are guilty. And now all Americans are left responsible, regardless of whether we supported or opposed he war. When we pull out, our hands will drip with the blood of the tens of thousands of American casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead. The Iraqi government didn't start this, we did.

The former Senator must be in denial. I wonder if anyone remembers waking up on Sept. 12th, 2001 and thinking "everything has changed." It seems that everyone I know did. But what did we mean? Well, one thing that changed is we went on the offensive against the terrorists. Another thing that should have changed is our tolerance for state sponsorship of terror. I remember the President firmly stating that we would not differentiate between the terrorists and those that aide and support them. Saddam was clearly a state supporter of terror. See my post here

Senator Gravel probably forgets that Saddam invaded Kuwait, and it was the United States that led a coalition of multinational forces in ousting Iraqi forces from that country. In the wake of Saddam's crushing defeat, he agreed to several U.N. Security Council regulations. He didn't keep his promises on any of them. The world was convinced, even Democratic leadership during the Clinton administration, that Saddam had WMD programs. In fact, the U.S. found remnants of previous WMD inventories and evidence of Saddam's desire to reconstitute his program at the earliest opportunity. I understand from the quoted article that if Senator Gravel had been President he would have given Saddam that opportunity.

Okay, we didn't find large stockpiles of WMD nor a nuclear weapons program. Three things need to be noted: 1) uncertainty regarding Iraq WMD has been replaced with certainty, meaning we should all sleep better at night (and thank our loyal troops for providing us with that comfort), 2) Even without the WMD, even if Saddam had come clean like he promised, we still would have had a problem with Saddam's sponsorship of terror, 3) Following Senator Gravel's advice now would likely lead to a Iranian backed takeover of Iraq by a shia fundamentalist regime, probably by Muktada Al-Sadr.

The Senator also forgets that we were actively engaged with Iraq nearly constantly for the entire period between the ODS and OIF.

Senator Gravel, I think it is time for you to enroll in 12-step program with respect to Islamic fundamentalist terror. If you can't take the war on terror seriously, Senator, you are not qualified to be President of the United States.

Breast Cancer, Racism, and Democrat Debate

An interesting item was published by Reuters. The article cites a story in the American Journal of Epidemiology. I quote the appropriate portion, and provide a link to the entire article.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Black women who feel they've been victims of racial discrimination are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer, a large study suggests. The study, which followed 59,000 African-American women for six years, found that those who reported more incidents of racial discrimination had a higher risk of breast cancer. ... The relationship was stronger among women younger than 50, researchers found. Women who said they'd faced discrimination on the job, in housing and from the police were 48 percent more likely to develop the disease than those who reported no incidents of major discrimination.

See the full article here.

Since the Democrat debate of June 28, 2007, conducted in front a predominantly African-American audience at Howard University, contained a healthy dose of racism against black women (see my post here) I suggest those in attendance immediately schedule an exam.

Happy Independence Day

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When will the U.S. push back?

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the threat posed by Iran and its mercenary army inaptly named Hezbollah (The Army of God). See In Denial: Ron Paul

The following news story broke today: IRAN

It comes as no surprise to those who have followed closely the events in Iraq, the activities of Hezbollah, and treachery of the Hezbollah's masters in Tehran that Iran and Hezbollah have trained people in Iran for deployment against U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The list of Iranian provocations is long and notorious.
See the John Lewis Chronology

When will the United States Government cease its feckless policy toward this belligerent? While hostilities are not warranted, there should be a clear increase in tension between the countries and a clear message delivered to the Ayatollahs.

The United States should insist that Iran immediately and verifiably cease all support for Hezbollah. This should be public and loud. The United States should respond with some form of action. One suggestion would be to close the borders between Iran and Iraq in the West, and Afghanistan in the East.

All Americans should be very upset over this news.

The Color Blind Constitution

On June 28, 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States published its opinion in the cases of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education (05-908).

This case demonstrates the extemely different views between the constructionists and the "living" constitutionalists. Let's begin with a quote from Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens):

The Founders meant the constitution as a practical document that would transmit its basic values to future generations through principles that remained workable over time.

This statement fully reveals the judicial philosophy of the minority. These four argue that context is important in Constituitional law. They argue that the actions of the Seattle and Jefferson County school authorities must be viewed in the context of their historical problems with racial division. This is the same line of thinking they espoused in the campaign finance reform case (FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life: see my post in June).

The minority's view is further captured by this statement:

The plurality... may feel confident that, to end invidious discrimination, one must end all governmental use of race-conscious criteria including those with inclusive objective. ...By way of contrast, I do not claim to know how best to stop harmful discrimination; how best to create a society that includes all Americans; how best to overcome our serious problems of increasing de facto segregation, troubled inner city schooling, and poverty correlated with race.

Justice Breyer's protests are too clever by half. He claims that the objectives are meritorious and widely shared, even by the majority. But this claim is proven false by Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. The School Districts involved here had no intentions or goals with respect to discrimination, inclusion, de facto segregation, or anything else. The truth is that the minority support the liberal political view that racial diversity is inherently beneficial. They would protect public school assignment on the basis of race to ensure that school admininstrators can engineer racial integration.

The majority are impressive on this issue. Justice Thomas' concurring opinion is penetrating in logic and insight. He points out that segregation is an intentional act, and thus, de facto segregation is not segregation at all. It is racial imbalance resulting from a possible multitude of possibilities. He points out the logical inconsistency of Seattle running an African-American Academy with no racial diversity and then using a racial assignment system for the rest of the district. His opinion is a must read.

Let's consider two more quotes from the case:

"As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a government's racial classifications are drawn by those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help those thought to be disadvantaged." Justice Thomas quoting himself

... the way "to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," Brown II 349 U.S., at 300-301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.

What is ironic in this decision is the particular heinousness of the racial systems used in Seattle and Louisville. In Seattle student are assigned based on the binary system of white or non-white. In Louisville it is also a binay system; black or non-black. The perverseness of these systems is completely exposed by The Chief Justice's opinion as well as by Justice Thomas' and Justice Kennedy's concurring opinions. It is unfathomable how the minority could support such systems.

Finally, Justice Kennedy, again the swing vote, tries to find a center. He correctly condemns the dissenters for their desire to create a system of racial allocation that has no logical conclusion. He is devestating on this issue. He disagrees with the majority to the extent that decision making on the basis of race may sometimes be necessary, but only after the decision-makers have exhausted all other possibilities. I believe that the difference between Kennedy and the Court's Plurality is one of phrasing only. Both accept the notion that the state must show a compelling interest and an exhaustion of other possibilities prior to instituting such severe and undesirable measures. The Constitution of the United States clearly prohibits such decision-making by the government. In this Court's view exceptions should be rare, justified, and only taken as a last resort.

After 230+ years, perhaps the Constitution is finally color blind.

Democrats' Debate at Howard University

On June 28th, the Democrat Candidates for President engaged in a debate at Howard University. Unnoticed by most observers was the soft racism directed at African-American females during the debate. Consider the evidence:

DeWayne Wickham’s question: Thank you, Tavis. This question is about the link between education and poverty. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006 the unemployment rate of black high school graduates -- black high school graduates -- was 33 percent higher than the unemployment rate for white high school dropouts. To what do you attribute this inequity, which keeps many black families locked in the grip of poverty?

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) led off with this unbelievable answer:

We should remind everybody that the day before a black child, a minority child, steps into the classroom, half the achievement gap already exists. ... And that gap widens... because we do not start school earlier. We do not give single mothers in disadvantaged homes the opportunities that they need in order to know what to do to prepare their children. A mother who talks to her child on a regular basis from infancy to being a toddler, that child when it’s two years old will have a vocabulary 300 words more than a child not talked to.

So it’s simple. You’ve got to start off and focus on the nurturing and education of children when they’re very young, particularly children from disadvantaged families. You’ve got to invest in starting kids in preschool at age four.

Thus, Senator Biden is effectively arguing that the reason black high school graduates do not get employed at the same rate as white dropouts is because their mothers, presumably black females, do not spend enough time talking to their children. The Senator's solution, peculiar to Democrat thought, is to have the state take over the student at a younger age (hence the Nanny State). What did the other candidates have to say?

We have to start early, universal preschool. Governor Richardson (D - New Mexico)

I actually agree with what Senator Biden said about early childhood, but I think we should start much earlier than 4 years of age, which is what the focus has been. Former Senator Edwards (D - North Carolina)

A number of the things that we’ve got to do have already been mentioned. Early childhood education. And John’s exactly right, it starts from birth. Senator Obama (D - Illinois)

We have heard absolutely the right prescription. Senator Clinton (D - New York)

This line of reasoning is unconscionable. More disturbing for the setting in which these opinions were offered and the reception that they received. The big question is when will African-American women put these pols in their place?

The revealed principle is that Democrats think the state can do a better job of parenting than parents can. How liberating. Immediately after birth we can just drop the infant off at the local pre-pre-pre-K where highly trained government specialists will immediately start ensuring our children will get all the talk, but none of the parental love, they need.

George Orwell where are you?