More Edwards Double Speak

During Wednesday's Democratic Debate, former Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) responded to a question on health care. Here is his opening comment:

I listen to this discussion and this is what I hear -- a bunch of people who have been in Washington a long time who think that everything needs to be done there. It's like the rest of America doesn't exist. They're going to have a bunch of Washington insiders who sit around tables... and figure out... what should be done about health care.

He then said something that should make the hair on your neck stand on end:

And the thing that I have committed to do is the first day that I am President, I will say to Congress, to myself, to the vice president, to the members of the cabinet, if you have not passed universal health care by July of this year.... you lose your health care because there is no excuse for politicians in Washington to have health care coverage when America has no health care coverage.

Way to take the time to listen to the American people Senator.

P.S. Unless you plan on appointing yourself dictator you cannot fulfill this commitment. I hope the American people are not fooled by your demagoguery on this issue.

Senator Joe Biden: In his Own Words

During Wednesday's Democratic Debate, Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) responded (in part) to a question from NBC's Tim Russert on health care with the following:

But the fact of the matter is, it's much more difficult to go out and convince a group of Republicans, I would argue, getting something done that is of a major consequence. I have experience doing that.

Thanks Joe.

I found the following sturied buried on page 11 of my local newspaper under the headline "Plant Explosion", I had to hunt for it at FoxNews.com where it, interestingly enough, is not on the "most read" stories list. Here is the link and here is the big news buried in the story:

But Jane's cited Syrian defense sources as saying the explosion took place during a test to fit a "Scud C" missile with a mustard-gas warhead. It quoted the sources as saying the explosion occurred when fuel caught fire in the missile production laboratory. .... Jane's, based in southern England, said the chemical weapons program was part of a strategic co-operation accord signed between Syria and Iran in November 2005.

Obviously, this is very disturbing news. It underscores the one of the basic themes of this blog: the United States must stop its lethargy in the face of these provocative actions by Iran and Syria. Such instances must be met with strong signals of escalating tension coupled with diplomatic efforts that demand these provocateurs cease and desist in these type of activities.

John Edwards' Terrifying Counterterrorism Strategy

In a speech given this week (Sept. 7th) at Pace University in New York, former Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) laid out his counterism policy ideas in a speech entitled "A New Strategy Against Terrorism." Read the entire speech here.

Senator Edwards ideas are both mystifying and terrifying. Here is the meat of the plan :

Instead of Cold War institutions designed to win traditional wars and protect traditional borders, we need new institutions designed to share intelligence, cooperate across borders, and take out small, hostile groups. ... As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles—strength and cooperation. The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO). Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.
CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

And thus, it seems that Senator Edwards is advocating a new international police force that will have the prerogative to violate national sovereignty at its own whim. It makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, doesn't it? I wonder where are the principles that our nation was founded under? Principles like checks and balances, a government properly constituted and constitutionally limited, responsibility to the people, and on and on and on....

But, the kindly Senator from the Tar Heel state is not done yet. Read this:

There is no more urgent task than preventing terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon or another weapon of mass destruction. And we will all be better off when the world is free of nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is key to progress against nuclear weapons. The recent agreement with North Korea to shut down their nuclear programs in exchange for the release of frozen assets is long overdue, but encouraging. It is telling that the few successes of the Bush Administration come from the diplomacy it has derided.
As president, I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would support peaceful nuclear programs, improve security for existing stocks of nuclear materials, and ensure more frequent verification that materials are not being diverted and facilities are not being misused. And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Again unbelievable. Strengthen the NNPT? The Senator who sees two America's apparently cannot see the reality of the modern world. Korea has continually flaunted the NNPT and has violated its agreements whenever it needs economic assistance. The success Senator Edwards sees in Korea is the success of bribery and payola, not diplomacy. Iran is another country that continually flaunts the NNPT and the UN's IAEA. The so-called big three EU powers have failed to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Iran, even with the assistance and backing of both the U.S. and Russia. Re-writing treaties and discussing the issue in committee is not going to solve the problem, it is the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Ready? Here is the payoff pitch:

And during my first year in office, I will establish a "Marshall Corps," patterned after the military reserves, that will include at least 10,000 civilian experts. Its members will be deployed abroad to serve on reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions.
Rethinking our approach to terrorism also means rethinking our approach country by country, cell by cell. And in each place where terrorism has taken root, there is a lot more we can do.
We must begin with one of the greatest generators of terrorism in the world today: Iraq.

So let me get this straight, we want to pull out 130,000+ troops from Iraq on the grounds it is failed and unconnected to terror... then send out TEN THOUSAND civilians to ???? deliver payola? Come on, Senator... this is ludicrous.

The Senator then lays out the tough talk:

As president, I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.
And Saudi Arabia is a country we have given too much in return for too little. We must require the Saudis to do more to stop the flow of terrorists to Iraq. As president, I will condition future arms packages on Saudi Arabia's actions against terrorists.

But Senator, what happened to CITO?????

President; Democrats; Still Do Not Get It.

Amazingly, the President of the United States and the Congressional Leadership of the Democratic Party seem not to be reading principleandpolicy.blogspot.com.

What else explains the moronic, today is yesterday all over again, political dialogue regarding the war in Iraq?

The Democrats are insisting on sticking to their mind-numbingly stupid political and policy positions: the war was a mistake, it is a distraction from pursuing bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, that the American people want our troops out of Iraq, etc, etc, etc.

As for the POTUS, he insists on maintaining that Iraq must be free and democratic in order to hold the line on terror. We must stand-by Iraqis who are fighting Al Qaeda elements until Iraqis can stand on their own.

Missing from this discussion is the strategy of the war on terror. The Democrats' rhetoric fails to recognize that the war on terror is larger than just Al-Qaeda and that Iraq is part of the war. POTUS has failed to lay out a clear strategy for the war on terror, which necessarily must address state sponsorship of terror.

In the age of terror, our only hope for lasting security is ending of state sponsorship of terror. Leaving Iraq now will empower Iran and Syria, the two major remaining state sponsors. It will also empower bin Laden by giving him a rhetorical victory with the Arab public. But, sticking it out in Iraq, however noble, is not the same as voicing a strategy that is designed to end state sponsorship and ultimately defeat the terrorist networks. Long time readers of this blog are familiar with this unavoidable logic.

The Drums of War: A Failure of Principled Policy

Fox has reported here that German opposition to further U.N. sanctions against Iran has led the U.S. to begin to develop attack plans against Iran's nuclear production facilities.

While some Democrats, and even Republicans like Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas), may scream, it is clear that the World cannot allow the Iranian Theocracy to acquire nuclear weapons. In fact, given their long and inglorious history of supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, it is dangerous for this regime to possess any type of radioactive material.

One cannot help but feel that feckless inaction {not} taken by the U.S.A. in the face of Iranian treachery over the last 30 years has lead to this point. I still believe that if the U.S. began responding to Iran in effective ways, that hostilities may be avoided. Note, this does not mean "diplomacy"... it means acting to increase tensions when the Iranians engage in provocative acts and acting to decrease tensions when the Iranians act in encouraging ways. It means sending clear and unmistakable signals of intent to the Iranians. Actions like increasing our military, forward deploying forces, capturing and detaining Iranian operatives, inspecting vessels bound for Iranian ports, etc. should all be on the table and under consideration whenever the Ayatollahs cross the line.

Regrettably, the current administration will likely deliver an ultimatum, then authorize weapons release. This may ultimately be necessary, but it is also a action that might produce an undesirable widening of the war in the middle east.

bin Laden's Sense of Humor

I read bin Laden's communique here.

They must have been really giggling like school girl's back in the cave when they thought this one up. What a hoot. The main idea in the message seems to be "Why don't all you godless Americans give up Democracy in favor of an autocratic theocracy based on Islam and led by me?" I had milk coming out my nose....

On a more serious note, this communique gives lie to the notion held by some, including GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R - Texas), that UBL and the boys are only angry because U.S. troops are in the Arab lands. The truth is, which is clearly evident from this message, that UBL is trying to rally the Arab people together by making the U.S.A. their common enemy. His only hope of establishing his precious caliphate is to convince the masses they have a common external enemy. This is the tried and true strategy of the megalomaniac -- and UBL is certainly one of those.

Fortunately, there are many more Arabs who realize that 1) UBL and his fanatic associates are the leading cause of Arab deaths, and 2) the U.S. is the only force protecting them from this murderous rampage.

Godspeed to U.S. Forces in all parts of the world.

Republican Candidates Still Don't Get IT.

Well, the August lull is over and the campaign season begins in earnest with last nights GOP debate in New Hampshire.

The big picture taken away from the debates is that the GOP field of candidates still do not get it. The election of 2008 is about winning the war on terror, a necessary component of which is ending state sponsorship of terror. There was little discussion of the topic and no plans laid out for victory.

When will they get it? The public wants to win, the public wants to here about victory.

The Danger of Withdrawal from Iraq

News reports today have suggested that Senators Carl Levin (D - Michigan) and John Warner (R - Virginia) found that the surge is working. But these articles also highlight the danger from the ill-conceived premise of the Democratic Party that immediate withdrawal is necessary.

Consider the following quote from a story on FoxNews.com:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an on-again, off-again supporter of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a British newspaper on Monday that the Iraqi government is on the brink of collapse. "Al-Maliki's government will not survive because he has proven that he will not work with important elements of the Iraqi people," the cleric was quoted by The Independent as saying. "The prime minister is a tool for the Americans, and people see that clearly. It will probably be the Americans who decide to change him when they realize he has failed. We don't have a democracy here, we have a foreign occupation."

Al-sadr is the biggest obstacle to peace and Democracy in Iraq. His positioning of the government as a non-democratic, foreign puppet, government is a pre-text for a fundamentalist takeover by shia loyal to himself and supported by the Ayatollah's in Tehran.

Beware of all Democrats and Republicans (like erstwhile Presidential Candidate and Congressman Ron Paul) that advocate immediate withdrawal. Such a move empowers Iran, which a major state sponsor of terror and a sworn enemy of the U.S.

Again Iran Misbehaves: The U.S. Response?

News stories at FoxNews.com and the NYTimes indicate that Iran has been arming Shiite militias with advanced bombs.

These weapons are killing our troops. The U.S. government needs to act. Instead there is diplomatic jawboning going on. This is disgraceful.

My plea to the President: PLEASE ACT NOW to stop Iranian interference in Iraq.

Ron Paul in Disgrace

Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 3159 which is, imho, an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress into the prerogatives of the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Decisions regarding troop assignments, including deployments and rotations, are his alone. Read about the bill here.

One of the few Republicans voting for this bill, as reported on C-Span this afternoon, was Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas). The official record confirms Congressman Paul voted "Aye."

I cannot understand how a person who seeks the office of the President could so cravenly conspire to usurp the constitutional authority of that office.

The Congressman should be ashamed.

Missing the Point: The Reaction to Obama's Tough Talk

Much of the literate world is contemplating the tough talk of Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois), candidate for the Democrat nomination to the office of President of the United States. The following passage from Senator Obama's speech is drawing all of the attention:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

The Senator is obviously trying to buck-up voter's perceptions of his foreign policy credentials. His rivals for the Democrat nomination are pummeling him with criticism. This kind of talk will not play well with the anti-war/pacifist wing of the Democratic base. It is thus deserving of debate and analysis by observers.

But, honestly there is far more in this speech that would make one pause before pulling the lever for the junior Senator from Illinois. For example, early in the speech Senator Obama makes this observation:

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland. Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. emphasis added

I would probably disagree with just about every thought in this paragraph, but the heart of the matter is the italicized statement about stateless terror. What we are facing is state supported terror. Without the aide, succor, and support given by these criminal regimes organizations like Al Qaeda could not even contemplate the strikes they have executed against US in this county, abroad, and against other Western countries.

Then too, he ignores the true nature of the terrorist threat: The network of terrorist minded individuals and small groups who seek funding, training, and other support from the financiers of terror. Certainly Al Qaeda is one such organization, but it is not the only such organization. The Islamic Brotherhood and Hezbollah are certainly involved in these activities.

Whether Senator Obama likes it or not, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a major state sponsor of terror. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a major state sponsor of terror. Iran is to this day a major state sponsor of terror, as is Syria. As I have noted previously on this blog (read here, here, and here), the war against terror cannot be won without ending state sponsorship of terror.

Hopefully, enough American voters will see the truth of this and prevent Senator Obama or any other like-minded individual from assuming the Office of President of the United States.

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?