DNC need for "exit strategy" dooms Hillary run?Not so fast....

“We pledged to support her to the end. Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

Rep-NY Charles Rangel

Typical of the cowardly party that has neither balls, nor patience and loyalty. Per their own rules, he/she with the most delegates wins.

However, as a result of the last two primaries, neither Hillary nor Obama had the needed pledged delegates to cross the finish line. Obama declares victory, but only with the aid of promises from the super delegates.

One hitch... supers don't cast their official votes until the DNC Convention in August. And while they may promise a vote today, events tomorrow allows them wiggle room to change their minds - all within the wacky and hardly Democratic DNC rules.

This means Obama's strutting is truly premature... unless, of course, he and other party leaders force Hillary out against her better judgment. And evidently, they have.

Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested that she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations throughout the day on Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.

snip

Mrs. Clinton’s decision came as some of her most prominent supporters — including former Vice President Walter F. Mondale — announced they were now backing Mr. Obama.

snip

The desire of the party for Mrs. Clinton to leave the race was signaled — if politely as four top Democratic leaders issued a statement on Wednesday morning asking all uncommitted delegates to make their decisions by Friday. The statement from the party officials — Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker; Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — stopped short of endorsing Mr. Obama, but aides said they would likely move in that direction if Mrs. Clinton lingered in the race.

“The voters have spoken,” they said in their joint statement released before 7 a.m., purposefully timed to set the tone for the day after the election. “Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election.”

The voters have spoken? What BS... Obama is a super delegate creation. And not even an official one until Denver at that. But let's not get facts get in the way of railroading.

But the Democrats are not known for their endurance. And the lack of a Hillary exit strategy - or "when the hell the end is", as Charlie puts it - isn't giving the lily-livered, high-profile supporters much to go on. So the big guns come out en masse to bully Hillary out of the running. Just as they've done over and over on Iraq, the powerful DNC elite declare defeat early, and prepare to abandon ship.

Perhaps more admirable is the core Hillary base... loyal and feeling every inch cheated, swindled, and disenfranchised. They know the rules too. And they're having to face the fact that the "every vote must count" of their beloved party is nothing more than an meaningless, feel-good slogan, empty of meaning and implementation.

His Messiahship and the big guns have spoken. Still I wonder how they'll deal with inevitable, and likely severe, "buyers' remorse".

But there is still the glimmer of a chance. Hillary will officially "suspend" her campaign, and throw her endorsement to Obama. However "suspend" is entirely different than "end". This is being done in order for her to continue fund raising to pay off debts.

Or is it just a way to wait quietly in the wings without officially withdrawing in the race? Only time will tell. And if that buyers' remorse does set in prior to Denver, they may be very glad they couldn't shake the lady.

World praises Iraq progress DNC "stays the course" on "failed policy" rhetoric

Evidently the rest of the world isn't so consumed with Bush hate as they cannot acknowledge from Iraq's fledgling govt has accomplished against all odds.

A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants "recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq."

It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that "given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable."

In a speech earlier to the conference, Ban said Iraq was "stepping back from the abyss that we feared most," adding that with international help the war-torn country could fulfill its "vision of becoming a free, secure, stable and prosperous nation."

He cautioned however that "the situation remains fragile."

In the meantime, the likely DNC candidate for POTUS stubbornly "stays the course". Just two days ago, Obama has the "audacity" to speak thru his spokesman, Bill Burton, responding to McCain's offer for a joint exploratory trip to Iraq:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

Not confined to the Presidential hopeful, Pelosi herself regurgitated the same ol' line in an interview with the SF Chronicle.

Asked if she saw any evidence of the surge’s positive impact on her May 17 trip to Iraq she responded:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

Blind hatred and selfish arrogance in order to secure the nation's top political seat are qualities in a leader that requires the US voter to adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief".

OBAMABOTS "TAKE A DUMP" ON PORTLAND's LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL

On a side note, symbolic of Obama's refusal to even recognize, let alone honor, our military's success can be found at his Portland, OR rally... where literally the Obamabots "took a dump" on Portland's fallen law enforcement officers.

Brennan, who controlled the crowd near the Portland Police Memorial, noticed several Porta Potties set up in the middle of the memorial. Brennan had been at the site five days earlier for an annual memorial service and a flag was still set at half mast on the day of the rally.

"There was plenty of room elsewhere so space wasn't an issue," Brennan said. "So someone used some really poor decision making, whoever elected to put them there. I mean, it's somewhat hallowed ground, I guess you could call it."

After several days, Brennan attached a photo he took to a letter and e-mailed it to dozens of media outlets and the Obama campaign.

Brennan said officers haven't heard back from the Obama campaign. He said someone owes an apology to the families of the fallen officers.

The officer, of course, doesn't blame Obama personally. However it's ironically insightful that his followers are just as oblivious to the honor and accomplishments of those that serve as the "messiah" they follow.

DNC: Siding with Chavez instead of Columbia?

The story says it all. The largest steel maker in Venezuela wouldn't sell to the government, so they took it... adding to their collection of communications, electricity and oil. Chavez is making sure all the basic commodies of necessity are under his control

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday ordered the expropriation of Venezuela's largest steel maker after attempts by the government to acquire a majority stake in the company failed.

Venezuela's government will turn Siderurgica del Orinoco, which was controlled by Luxembourg-based Ternium SA., into "a socialist company," Chavez told workers gathered at a Caracas theater.

Sidor, as the company is known, "has now recuperated by the revolutionary government," Chavez said.

Since winning re-election in 2006 on promises to steer his country toward socialism, Chavez has made nationalizing major industries a top priority.

His government last year seized majority control of the country's largest telecommunications and electricity companies, and of joint oil ventures run by some of the world's largest oil companies. Earlier this month, he announced plans to nationalize cement companies including Mexico's Cemex SAB, France's Lafarge SA and Switzerland's Holcim Ltd.

snip... continue reading at link above

Now that you've been reminded about the downward spiral of Venezuela under Chavez... I told you that story, to tell you this story from FrontPage Mag by Mark W. Hendrickson. Columbia is in deep shit. Their forces crossed into Ecuador to kill leftist Paul Reyes and other FARC forces hiding out there. This is, of course, the group bent on taking the Columbia government by force. This action sends Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, into a rhetoric frenzy.

A more serious condemnation came from Hugo Chavez. And now he's posturing troops on the Columbia border.

Even more outrageous than Correa’s conduct was the reaction of Venezuela’s mercurial leader, Hugo Chavez. Chavez eulogized the murderous Reyes as “a good revolutionary,” ordered 9,000 Venezuelan soldiers to his country’s border with Colombia, and made it plain that he would give FARC safe refuge from Colombian justice as long as he was in power. Chavez’ actions are clearly those of a man rushing to the defense of an ally. Those actions lend credence to the report that the confiscated computers document hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from Chavez to FARC.

You might think that other Latin American countries—seeing that Chavez is trying to undermine Colombia’s government—would protest Chavez’ meddling, if not actually stand by Colombia’s side. Not so. The less radical Latin American presidents aren’t blind. They know how Chavez helped to organize disturbances in Bolivia and Ecuador that drove presidents from office so they could be replaced by Chavez allies. They know how much oil wealth Chavez is willing to spend to support left-wing allies and topple democrats throughout Latin America. This, I believe, intimidated them, and they joined Chavez in denouncing Colombia’s act of self-defense—an act which in no way hurt any other country.

So what do Chavez's not so subtle attempts to effect regime change from democracy to socialism in Columbia mean to the new breeds of US isolationist/protectionists?

Well, America was just about the last of Columbia's allies. And Pelosi has just forced the US Congress to join in on the "beat up on Columbia" free-for-all when she pulled the stunt of changing the rules about voting on CAFTA. under pressure from the AFL-CIO union honchos.

So here it is. A US ally is taking care of itself, attacking their rebel elements. They're not asking the US to send troops and do it for them, mind you. And yet what do we do? Start playing games with their economics for politics.

Hendrickson has an interesting take in his last paragraph... one that points out a looming contrast between union leaders of the past, and the leaders today.

This episode is highly instructive. It shows how completely Big Labor controls the Democratic Party. It also illustrates just how leftwing some labor leaders are. Earlier generations of American labor leaders would patriotically support our country’s allies. Sweeney, by contrast, is joining his fellow leftists from Latin America in beating up on Colombia. While democracy is under siege in our hemisphere, powerful forces in Washington are making common cause with democracy’s enemies. Shame.

I'd fall short of saying the unions are Chavez supporters. Afterall, socialism is not exactly a compatible critter with unions. But it is certainly ironic that US unions, exercising their power and influence over the Speaker and Congress, somehow find themselves on the same side as the Venezuelan despot and his subordinate neighboring thugs instead of our ally. And ya know, that's getting to be quite common nowadays... Hamas supporting Obama, DNC policies run parallel to al Qaeda's. This is quite the trend of late.

This is the Hillary/Obama party in control. Obama believes Bush as turned his back on Latin American countries. But the truth seems to sully his words as slick, politically motivated lies.

Just how are the DNC candidates to reconcile their party's behavior and policies with various national security issues? i.e... their constant cries the US must improve our image tarnished by the evil Bush. And we do this by abandoning Columbia economically, followed rapidly Iraq?? That should do mounds to increase "da love".

Perhaps what nags at me the most is why... just why... purposely or not... American leftists' vision for the US results in siding with our enemies instead of our allies darn near every time?

The latest in DNC hypocrisy Changing the rules to thwart Bush

House queen, Pelosi, has decided to change the rules of the game to thwart a vote on the Columbia trade agreement. (NOTE SEE UPDATE BELOW....)

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will change its rules so as to skirt a requirement that it vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi says the House will vote on the rules change policy Thursday, effectively putting off a vote on a free trade agreement that is a key priority of the Bush administration.

"The president took his action. I will take mine tomorrow," Pelosi said.

This is the same group, whining about the Iraqi Assembly's lack of political resolve and legislation. Can you say "irony"?

I'm not a huge fan of the NAFTA/GATT/CAFTA agreements. Then again, I'm not quite sure of another way to deal with trade in this global world that is equitable to US companies. Afterall, they are slammed financially with OSHA requirements, environmental requirements, union wages and corporate/payroll taxes... all making it nigh on impossible to compete with foreign manufacturers not subject to the same, heavy handed government mandates.

Then again, the DNC changing the rules of the game to suit their whims isn't anything new. Nor is it the last hole they themslves dug - holes in which they are about to trip into. Just keep the eyes peeled on seating (or not seating) Florida and Michigan delegates. A primary election that is bogus to the core either because of candidates' not appearing on the ticket.

For a group that preaches no more "divisions", no "racial or gender" bias, and the unfairness of it all to "disenfranchise voters", they've pretty much succeeded in proving they are *all* about race and gender, they'll change Congressional rules to keep "divides" in legislation alive and well, and they have no problem disenfranchising voters because that's how they set up their rules.... rules they'll change to harrass Bush, but not to rescue their own voter blocks.

_________________________________________

UPDATE APRIL 10TH, 2008: One day later, the WSJ has a top notch op-ed about the DNC's defection from reality.

snip

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.

Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.

snip

With the DNC, it's always something. But there is no doubt this has everything to do with politics. Most especially on the heels of both BHO and HRC slamming NAFTA publicly. It would just not do to have the Dem led Congress to pass something they've planning on doing so, proving they are again lying thru their teeth to their fan base.

However, as the WSJ op-ed points out, for a group whining about the US "image" in the world, they are doing more than their fair share of keeping that image in the toilet.

Even if the free trade agreement is somehow removed from cold storage, Ms. Pelosi's cheating is a first-order strategic blunder. Colombia is one of America's closest friends in a hostile region menaced by Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. For all the talk of repairing the U.S. "image" in the world, the Democrats don't really mind harming that image if it pleases the AFL-CIO.

Amen to that one. It's gonna be a fun four years coming up....

Pelosi warns Petraeus ... doesn't want any good news

Ah yes... another Petraeus visit to Congress. And I guess the MoveOn.org funds prohibit another slanderous ad because Pelosi, herself - backed up by Ike Skelton and Howard Berman - called a press conference to lay out the predictable DNC un'welcome mat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

Caught "off guard"??? This woman needs to read something other than Redbook when getting her nails done. Prior to the start of Operation Calvary Charge, the US offered to place Special Forces and air power near the theatre as back up. The Iraqi's politely refused. Tough to offer aid in advance when you're caught off guard, don't you think?

According to even citizen Iraqis, they've known about OCC for months. In fact, word is it was supposed to start a week earlier, but was delayed for Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's cold feet.

And dictated from Iran? Good god, woman. First you want everyone to "talk" to Iran. And when Maliki does, now you say Iran is "dictating" cease fire terms. Pick a talking point and stay on it, if you can.

Ahmadinejad visited Iran... with barely a welcome wagon. His offers of aid and projects were refused by Iraq. And to quote Nibras Kazimi of Talisman Gate directly...

"The UIA delegation that visited al-Sadr went public in denouncing any media talk of Iranian intervention in calming down the situation and described such talk as “enemy propaganda”.

What we do have is yet another DNC ploy to use a responsive, anti-free-Iraq media to discredit Petraeus in advance. And this is appalling. Congress should be listening to events from commanders on the ground... not the New York Times.

Will Dem backdoor attempt tothwart war efforts succeed?

The Washington Times has an editorial that caught my eye. It has to do with something that's been grating on my nerves for some time now.... the funding of our troops and their civilian support units.

Remember back to February of this year, and the "slow bleed" headlines dominating our news? It was the Congressional back door to defeat while escaping public criticism. That would be to slowly bleed the troops and insure defeat by not getting the military appropriations bill out in a timely fashion.

Murtha was threatening attaching conditions, the Dems all the while running around from news hound to news hound, assuring us that the military was in no danger of running out of funds.

Then... the story dropped off the face of the front pages. Summer went by... no bill. Fall.. no bill. Congress did not fund the troops until just this past week. And the supposed media watchdogs remained silent throughout, never once prodding the Dem majority Congress on their inaction on behalf of our military and their safety.

And of course, the Dems have been crying hard and loud about Republican obstructionism of late... however this can not be said INRE a funding bill for the troops. Dem leadership knew they could not load up the funds with their strategic, myopic demands without a veto. So their delays were of their own doing.

This past week, Congress finally got around to passing a funding bill, tying over the military until spring. But have their attempts to thwart the stellar progress made by US, coalition and Iraqi troops possibly been realized?

But right now, thanks to the obstructionism of Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when it comes to funding the troops, trouble is on the horizon at the Pentagon, which has yet to receive an appropriations bill to continue funding the war. On Thursday, Defense Department officials said furlough letters would hit 100,000 civilian military employees next week in an attempt to free up money for combat troops. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England sent letters to senior Democrats, among them Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, warning that the pending layoffs "will affect the critical support our civilian employees provide to our war-fighters — support which is key to our current operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq." Notices also went out to all Army command facilities in the United States and abroad with civilian employees and contractors, and to U.S. Marine Corps commanders as well, warning them of potential civilian layoffs at their bases.

If the furloughs begin next week, these fine men and women will have Mrs. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats to thank.

Let's hope there is a way to transfer funds so this doesn't happen. But I've been waiting for this... And I am just livid at the neglect of Congress to their responsibilities.

Manufacturing dissent? Can the anti-war base be revived?

There's no doubt that a quick review of any cable news prime time reveals that Iraq news is nigh non-existent anymore. Joanne Ostrow, The Denver Post's TV critic, notes it as well in her column "War in Iraq falls off media radar"...

Sit through a random newscast or a half-hour of cable TV news, or listen to your favorite radio talker. In other words, take the temperature of America via the media and identify what's missing.

Is America at war with immigrants? Is the mortgage crisis the hottest topic in America? Is the public transfixed by the latest candidates' debate?

snip

The war in Iraq is the biggest nonstory of the moment, an overarching situation that is largely missing in action from the daily media rundown

snip

In the first quarter of 2007, coverage of Iraq made up 22 percent of all news, according to Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. In the second quarter of 2007, that number fell to 16 percent.

Jurkowitz, a former media writer at the Boston Globe, said that if you take the week after Petraeus' visit to Congress, through last Friday, "the Iraq policy debate is down to 3 percent" of the total news hole.

snip

Coverage of campaign '08, by contrast, started big and has stayed big, continuing with a staggering intensity. (The Democrats have gotten more coverage than the Republicans by a significant margin, and Hillary Clinton is the most covered candidate of all.)

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press similarly found the percentage of respondents who said they follow news about Iraq very closely dropped from about 40 percent in late 2006-early 2007 to about 30 percent in the second half of 2007. Pew reported in November that, "News about the Iraq war does not dominate the public's consciousness nearly as much as it did last winter. Currently, just 16 percent of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind when asked what has been in the news lately." More generally, Pew found, public interest in news about the situation in Iraq is now less than it was earlier this year or in 2006.

It may not be an overstatement to say that Iraq war coverage is declining so fast that some viewers may forget we're at war by the end of the year. According to the Tyndall Report, for the first 37 weeks of 2007 (January-September) when Gen. Petraeus concluded his testimony on Capitol Hill, the total number of minutes the three network nightly newscasts devoted to Iraq was 1,659.

This is obviously not good news for Democrat candidates, who've staked out their political futures on how they'd handle Iraq and other similar situations with "diplomacy" and "international support". It's even worse news for the party who claims they won the midterm elections by a landslide (instead of the realistic hair's breadth with moderate Democrat candidates) based on the mandate to get us out of Iraq.

How can this happen? "The people" want us out of Iraq, Pelosi still parrots every moment of face time she gets.

With the good news that escapes broadcast, seeping out in sporadic articles in print and web media, a complacent nation again turns it's attentions back to their favorite subject... themselves and their own living conditions. And lost is a powerful liberal tool for campaigning.

Or is it? As one of my faves, Ray Robison, points out in his American Thinker article today, "Manufacturing Dissent: An Odd Poll Raises Questions", there's something fishy about the poll responders that are presented as exclusively military families or relatives. Said poll proclaims that the CIC has lost the support of military families for his Iraq policy. I guess if the "American people" they so love to talk about doesn't care anymore, they'll seek to highlight the military antiwar. Only one problem... just who were they asking?

Robison counters the poll results with some comments from Military.com, a website devoted to military families.... and ponders just how - with nary a whit of dissent on that or other webpages by military families - can this poll be an accurate measurement of military family support?

To be sure, self-selection by respondents yields unscientific results, Still, it's a little odd that a website that has a predominately military readership would have results that are completely opposite the LA Times/Bloomberg poll results for the question of whether or not the war was worth it when put to military members and families.

snip

This poll which is being billed as a rebuke to the president by military families includes only 10% of respondents who actually claim to have a family member who is serving or has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore, the number of respondents who had family involved in Iraq specifically is even less than 10%. So the people who are supporting family members in Iraq actually had very little to do with these conclusions as a whole.

But look again at the claims from Bloomberg and the LA Times. They claim the respondents were critical over Iraq, not Afghanistan. Let's be generous and guess that two-thirds or 100 of these respondents claimed to have a family member who served in Iraq. According to a recent USA Today article, over 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq. To try to take a poll with 100 or so respondents out of a pool of over 1.5 million is absurd.

There is no statistical validity and no way to assign any confidence to the conclusion that military family members of those who have fought in Iraq are turning against the President because of Iraq. The methodology statement notes that the margin of error for this subgroup is 8%. I would suggest it is quite a bit larger when you consider other factors.

Indeed, such a poll with possible "plants" and misrepresented participants might be construed as an attempt to manufacture dissent. But since the nation's narcissistic population doesn't give a whit about Iraq anymore, what good would it do?

It just may be that it is a massive effort to revive that dissent in order to make a current and important non-issue, again, an issue for the 2008 election. But I suspect before that happens, the US, Iraq and coalition will have to start losing ground overseas.

Certainly Pelosi is still trying to keep the anti-war base alive.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public's priorities.
"They like this war. They want this war to continue," Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."

A Republican war? This attitude towards the conflict in the heart of the Middle East is a dangerous one for America. Jihad does not single out it's victims via party affiliation. They will brutally murder not only Dems and GOP alike, but their own Muslim community for any alliance with the west.

Even now, al Qaeda plots to assassinate Musharraf in order to prevent him for assuming control and responsibility over Pakistan's nukes. Will the aspiring Dem candidates see this as a self-righteous power grab by a despot? Or as the much needed security for Pakistan's nuke arsenal, keeping it out of the hands of an enemy the liberal candidates do not wish to engage on any soil - nay, even acknowledge as enemies?

The Iraq conflict, and it's context in the broader war against the Global Islamic Jihad Movement, suffers from clear understanding because the American public, under the media's non-stop misinterpretation, still sees war only as against nation states, and not the stateless enemy who came to our shores on 911. The average American sees Afghanistan as a just conflict, and Iraq as a destructive error. They see no ties between the two as part of a larger strategy by the enemy.

And so, as the al Qaeda presence in Irag diminishes, so does the venom of the anti-war sheeple. And as memories and venom fade, so does the luster on the Democrat candidate stars... much to their chagrin. Thus, the desperate efforts to rekindle the antiwar fire in the headline news blurbs.

Yet the enemy knows no single nation to call home. The stronghold in Afghanistan under the Taliban's protection was broken, and they fled to join existing contacts in Iraq - operating there for years under the protection of Saddam's IIS and Ba'athists. Now they leave Iraq and re converge in Afghanistan/Pakistan and North Africa.

Barring major setbacks in Iraq, it will prove difficult for the liberal progressives to revive the heat of the antiwar issue for campaign purposes. They can publish all the polls in the world in the attempt to inspire the public to rage against military success.

But as the global jihad movement relocates its headquarters, and continues on with their agenda of death and their Islamic Caliphate, Americans will have to wake up to the real, stateless threat that will continue to wage war... no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Under these very real threats, manifesting themselves on a different Middle East sand dune, it may be very hard to manufacture dissent and antiwar at all.

___________________________

UPDATE 12/14/07 Evening

"Congress authorizes war funds and sends bill to Bush"... sans withdrawal deadlines. All I can say is it's 'bout bloody time!

This doesn't, of course, preclude the liberal anti-Iraq Dems from displaying their idiocies...

"The effort (to change course in Iraq) is not over," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after the vote. But he did not know what the next step in that struggle would be.

Change the course from succeeding to? Uh... that would be NOT succeeding, yes?

Waterboarding as a political springboard

Apparently all the hoopla by la Dems on waterboarding is nothing more than political smoke and mirrors.

According to WaPo's "Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002" article today, four members - including Pelosi - were briefed by the CIA and given a virtual tour of oversees detention camps, and interrogation techniques.... including waterboarding.

Additionally, the CIA gave key legislators over 30 private briefings on that and other techniques. Yet nary a sniff of disapproval made headlines ... until today's election era, that is.

By the time the media and partisan lawmakers started raising public objections, the CIA had abandoned waterboarding as a technique.

Then comes the recent news of the CIA destroying a 2005 interrogation tape in order to protect the identities of the agents. Naturally, it's an event initially seized upon as yet another "hate the evil Bush" moment. Yet that tape was destroyed against the advice of the WH and Justice Department. Oops... lost everyone's favorite scape goat there.

It appears the liberal/progressives have arrived at the waterboarding complaint party late, and prefer to make a non-issue an issue just for political points. As for me, I think waterboarding is far preferable to the enemy's favorite method of torture - mutilation and beheading. After all, the prisoner remains intact, and alive to kill and mutilate again. But we live in strange times - where only the US is expected to adhere to Geneva Convention rules of engagement in times of conflict.

The fact that waterboarding is akin to beating a dead horse, however, does not preclude some media working overtime to find some veteran sailor, blaming his current ills on waterboarding as part of his 1970s survival training. This all to keep the waterboarding non-issue alive and well. If they can only dig up one out of the many who underwent the same survival training to parade in public, then perhaps Mrs. McCant's woes might more readily be a result of his admitted drinking problem... a problem he's had since his honorable discharge from the Navy in 1977. His credibility seems tarnished as the timing of his public complaint - magically naming the new hot button issue waterboarding as the source of all his ills - seems johnny come lately... 30 years after his discharge.

And more equine beating? Leave it to Joe Biden... now demanding newly appointed AG Michael Mukasey appoint a special counsel for the taxpayer wasting dollar investigation into the destroyed CIA interrogation tape. Evidently, since he wouldn't condemn waterboarding as torture during the confirmation hearings, he doesn't trust him to lead the investigation.

Not so fast on that "no WMDs" claim....

Interesting FrontPage article by Caroline Glick today... The Proliferation Dodge is a must read, and echoes what I've been hounding on now for months. That being those Iraqi government documents seized after our 2003 entry - finally getting translations and published - are revealing more about Saddam, his relationships with the global Islamic jihad movement, and his WMD programmes.

Over the weekend former federal prosecutor and the head of the non-governmental International Intelligence Summit, John Loftus, released a report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. His report was based on a private study of captured Iraqi documents. These were the unread Arabic language documents that U.S. forces seized, but had not managed to translate after overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003.

After a prolonged battle between Congress and then director of U.S. National Intelligence John Negroponte, President George W. Bush ordered those documents posted on a public access Web site last year. They were taken down after it was discovered that among the Iraqi documents were precise descriptions of how to build nuclear weapons.

As Loftus summarized, "The gist of the new evidence is this: Roughly one-quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990s. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid-to-late-1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans' noses."

Loftus then cites Israeli sources who claim that the Iraqi nuclear program was transferred to the Deir az Zour province in Syria.

Loftus's report jibes with a report published on the Web site of Kuwait's Al Seyassah's newspaper on September 25, 2006. That report, which I noted last November, cited European intelligence sources and claimed that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. Syria's program, which was run by President Bashar Assad's brother Maher and defended by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards brigade, had by mid-2006 "reached the stage of medium activity." The Kuwaiti report stated that the Syrian nuclear program was based "on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai transferred to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the U.S.-British invasion in March 2003." The program, which was run by Iranians with assistance from Iraqi scientists and scientists from the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union, "was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria."

Glick goes on in this exemplary report - pointing out how complacent leaders fail the world's security when they demonstrate a severe lack of interest in pursuing the informational truths, and downplay their actual existence.

Stellar stuff... truly stellar. Will the media ever admit their premature "there were no WMDs" rallying cry was in error? Will Pelosi and Reid ever apologize for their blatant lies?

Or will this all be chalked up to disbelievers refusing to recognize the documents are genuine because it's not only inconvenient, but proves the Iraq action was warranted? Oh no! Could it be Bush was correct? How dastardly...

Probably the latter. And it is these attitudes that will be the death of us all.

More MSM seeing "genocide" resolution as"slow bleed" stealth legislation

Back on Oct 11th, when the Armenian genocide resolution condemning Turkey passed the House on Foreign Affairs committee, I immediately saw it as another "slow bleed" attempt by the Dems. I'm sure many thought I was insane. But I put nothing past the desperation of Dems, tired of having their hands tied by the genuine Commander in Chief of the military.

It was, after all, a perfect strategy in all ways. First, they can effectively force early withdrawal for the US military in Iraq by cutting off their supply lines thru Turkey ground and air space. And all done under the moral banner of identifying "genocide".

Secondly, no one came accuse them of this coming out of the blue, thereby eliminating the accusation of timing in order to accuse them of a back handed Iraq withdrawal pan. They've attempted to get this resolution thru on previous occasions. Once, in 2000, it was stopped by Bill Clinton himself, with an appeal to a Republican Congress to prioritize current relations with Turkey over actions by a now defunct government almost 100 years ago.

At that time, the Republic Congress listened. But the Dem led Congress today? Pelosi's made the talking heads Sunday rounds, and insists she's sticking to her guns. And they have the chutzpah to call Bush stubborn and without compromise?

As it is a non binding resolution, there is no Presidential veto power. They vote it in, despite objections of the WH, and the deed and damage is done. No going back.

This resurrection of the genocide bill concerned me as I wasn't sure if anyone with the power of the pen or the microphone would recognized the sleazy, back door withdrawal strategy. And unless it was brought to the attention of the American citizens, how would they connect the dots?

In today's New York Post (but appearing on the Internet Sunday) is Ralph Peters "Playing Politics with Genocide".

Last Wednesday, the Democrat-controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution formally declaring the Armenian tragedy what it was: genocide. Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to bring the resolution to a vote on the floor, after which it would go to the Senate.

We need to stop it. It's a travesty and a betrayal. Of Armenian-Americans. And of our troops.

Make no mistake: I'm on the Armenian side in the court of history. When the same resolution came up in years past, I supported it. The Armenian survivors - their descendants, at this point - deserve justice.

snip

Despite all that, we've got to kill this resolution. It's not the wording - but the timing.

Legislation similar to this has come up repeatedly in Congress, yet it's always been defeated - in 2000, because of pressure from the Clinton administration. But if the resolution passes the House and Senate now, the Turks plan to evict us from Incirlik airbase in southeastern Turkey, to halt our military over-flight privileges and to shut down the supply routes into northern Iraq.

That's what the Democrats are aiming at. This resolution isn't about justice for the Armenians. Not this time. It's a stunningly devious attempt to impede our war effort in Iraq and force premature troop withdrawals.

The Dems calculate that, without those flights and convoys, we won't be able to keep our troops adequately supplied. Key intelligence and strike missions would disappear.

Today a second print journalist picked up on the suspicious timing and desired results. Jed Babbin's column in Human Events, "Pelosi's Most Dangerous Ploy" follows the same argument for "slow bleed", but with different words.

Congressional Democrats anxious to force a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq are frustrated by their inability to muster a veto-proof majority for legislation that would establish a firm date for retreat. But what they cannot do directly they are now working hard to do indirectly.

snip

On October 11, Pelosi said, “While that may have been a long time ago, genocide is taking place now in Darfur, it did within recent memory in Rwanda, so as long as there is genocide there is need to speak out against it.”

But the resolution is gratuitous and Democrats’ timing suspicious. It’s gratuitous because, in 1981, President Reagan referred to the Armenian massacre as genocide in a proclamation commemorating the Nazi Holocaust.

Why, if Pelosi is so committed to ending genocide, aren’t she and Senate Democrat leaders doing something about the ongoing genocide in Darfur or the massacres of protesters in Burma?

Speaker Pelosi said, “This isn't about the Erdogan government. This is about the Ottoman Empire." Baloney.

The Democrat leadership could write and pass legislation insisting the UN intervene to save the living instead of using the memory of the dead to score political points. In neither case should we intervene militarily. But the lack of concern for ongoing mass murder proves the Democrats’ only purpose is to enrage the Turkish government and end their cooperation on Iraq.

Babbin suggests that Congress shows it's poker hand and real agenda because it doesn't address current genocides happening with effective action. Congress did pass a resolution in July 2004, labeling the action in Darfur genocide. That and a dime won't even get you a cup of coffee today, let alone intervention from the UN. So the key words here are "effective action".

And it is the lack of tangible and actionable results from a resolution condemning Turkey that is the biggest piece of evidence that this is just not about placating Armenians around the world.

Hopefully more MSM and radio talk show hosts will jump on the bandwagon to inform those who actually believe Congress gives a whit about Armenians... other than those in their voting district. Because, as we can tell with this resolution, they sure don't care about supplying our troops in the field.

Pelosi admits to a "hate Bush" strategy in 2006 mid-terms

Dana Milbank's WAPO story, "Smile, tho your head is aching", is one about Pelosi's not so pleasant lunch with reporters. Indeed, while he pointed out that she continued to smile and laugh, he also noted that the words uttered by the Speaker made that smile "more akin to that of a barracuda".

To me, Pelosi had a few "huh's??" in her quotes. One included ranting about the anti-Bush, anti-war protesters camping out at her San Francisco residence.

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

Obviously she would prefer homeless to protesters outside her home, as she can have them easily taken away by authorities. Pelosi's attitude towards arrest of the homeless is a new trend in San Francisco. It appears the liberals and progressives are finally going to battle about the runaway problem of homeless, defecating in the streets and shooting up in the parks.

But the quote that just about took my breath away... It was on the heels of Pelosi dodging the reporter questions about low Congressional poll numbers. Instead of addressing the responders discontent, she turned the conversation positive, gushing about Democratic poll numbers being in the 40 percentile. Then the jaw dropper...

Holders of high office typically avoid discussions like that because it makes them look, well, political. But Pelosi did not hesitate to plunge into the political, explaining that "it was so important for us to bring the president's numbers down two years ago on Social Security" because it discouraged Republican candidates from running for Congress.

An admitted, concerted effort to go on the attack with the specific purpose of lowering Bush approval rates to discourage Republican candidates? Oh my... And an effort which would have been impossible but for the mighty aid by a marionette, agenda driven media, I might add.

Considering the Pelosi/Reid Congress hasn't much under their belts of significance except more partisan venom, the inability to fulfill their campaign promises to their extreme base, and the ability to sidestep funding our troops... they can at least take pride that their "hate Bush" campaign started years ago to "discourage Republican candidates" was a success. However it's notable, even if not honestly reported, that the mid-term elections were won by slim margins in the majority of cases.

Then, of course, if the mid-terms were all about Iraq as they claim, nothing is more telling than the Lieberman story in very liberal Connecticut. Booted out by Dems for not toeing the party line on Iraq, Joe went Indy. And subsequently mopped the floor with a 10% spread win over the Dems cherry picked, anti-war replacement, Ned Lamont. In fact, if you count the 10% who voted Republican in that race, combined with pro-Iraq success Lieberman's 50%, that liberal state just may be 60-40 "win in Iraq" mentality. Poor profiling, and a big miscall on the Dems part.

With the margins so slim, the Lieberman story, and the inability to get enough Congressional members of either house to stop the war by choking the funding, the "get out of Iraq mandate" Dems claim at every turn is a farce at best.

However it was an astonishingly frank admission to the games pols play in order to stoke their power base. A slip of the tongue? With the ever present Pelosi/barracuda smile, unlikely. She rests confident that criticism of this disclosure will roll easily off her party's back, and be sufficiently ignored by enough of the press (except Dana Milbank, apparently).

In one simple lunch, Pelosi has shown herself to be a steeled politician who takes pride in her knowledge and execution of sleazy and destructive politics - politics that have nothing to do with insuring a full spectrum of representation of all American voices in Congress.

Self appointed carrier pigeon Pelosi gets it wrong

Harsh criticism from the normally liberal supporting WaPo today on Pelosi's totally wrong message to Syria from Israel today.

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

****************
UPDATE 4/6/07

The aftermath of Ms. Pelosi's misspoken publicity statement resulted in making Israel the culprit, and not Pelosi herself. Nice move, Nanc... like they didn't have enough problems before you opened your mouth and assumed credit where no credit was due.

Jordan's Ad Dustur newspaper editorialized, "It must be stated that Pelosi's visit to Syria is a step in the right direction, given the fact that the way of the Democrats to the American presidency is wide open."

But the paper expressed some skepticism about Pelosi's visit, noting that her statement to Assad that Israel's prime minister was ready to hold peace talks provoked a prompt response from Israel that Syria must renounce terrorism first -- an example, it said, of Israel setting further conditions for peace.

While the predictably SF lib article first reports Pelosi with admiration from the Arab nations in general, reading down a few paragraphs further shows not all were pleased, and many saw thru her motives.

Writing in English for Al-Jazeera's Web site, Seifulah Rahim went so far as to describe Pelosi's visit as a "bold end-run around President Bush, to raise her profile as a kind of Democratic prime minister to Bush's Republican presidency."

In a column for the English-language Web site of the United Arab Emirates-based Gulf News, Damascus University lecturer Marwan Al Kabalan suggested that since she is "the second most pro-Israel representative in the U.S. Congress" and with little real influence on U.S. foreign policy, Pelosi's real motives had more to do with U.S. politics than Middle East peace.

"It is reasonable to argue that Pelosi's visit to Damascus was intended to weaken President George W. Bush and undermine his position inside the U.S. rather than trying to bring about a real shift in U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East in general and Syria in particular," Al Kabalan wrote.

Pollster John Zogby said a reading of other English-language press from the region also gave the sense that Pelosi was being seen as "the anti-Bush."

"That is extremely important, because there has been serious damage done in terms of both the elite and how they view the U.S. and in terms of general public opinion," he said. "The trip is playing, generally speaking, very well in both regions -- both within Iran and within the Arab world."

snip

One notable exception to the overall positive perception of Pelosi's trip, Zogby said, was in Lebanon, where anti-Syrian groups saw Pelosi's visit to Syria as reducing pressure on the Assad government, which Lebanese groups blame for political assassinations in Lebanon and support of Hezbollah's aspirations in the strife-torn nation.

"A very prominent American figure and delegation coming to meet with the Syrian president, that's problematic," he said. "They don't want any legitimation of a regime that they see as being behind the assassination and having been a stumbling block in terms of Lebanese peace and progress."

Nadim Houry, a Syria researcher at Human Rights Watch, and Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies, emphasized that criticism in the English-language Daily Star.

"Journalists and commentators will use a lot of ink debating the merits of Pelosi's visit," they wrote. "But one thing is clear. She missed an opportunity to send a strong message to the Syrian authorities that Washington's desire to cooperate with Syria does not mean it will turn a blind eye to Syria's human rights violations."

END UPDATE
********************

Mind you, I had no problem with Pelosi's travel to the ME, depending, of course, on what she said and what power she alluded to possessing. Republican Congress members had also visited days before. However what the Republicans did not do was attempt to play diplomatic carrier pigeon.

But what is also apparent is that Ms. Pelosi apparently forgot her own promises and conditions, published only days before in an ABC News article.

JERUSALEM Apr 1, 2007 (AP)— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will tell Syrian leaders when she visits Damascus this week on a trip criticized by the Bush administration that Israel will only engage in peace talks if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants, Israel said Sunday.

The message came during Pelosi's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during the Israel part of her Mideast tour.

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations."

According to a Fox News article, Pelosi's office issued a statement after the bru-haha that she "accurately relayed" the message.

Olmert's office also issued a statement saying it had specified to Pelosi that Israel considers Syria "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."

Pelosi's office on Thursday issued a statement saying that she "accurately relayed" the message from Olmert to Assad, which was that Syria must cease its ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, among other things that the Bush administration also is calling for.

The statement also downplayed the reaction by Israeli officials, which Pelosi's office said "sought merely to express that the message given to Speaker Pelosi did not indicate a change in Israel's position toward Syria. The speaker neither said nor implied that this message was a change in Israel's position."

If the presentation was correct, then the press statement she made was not. And instead of coming out with some breathless statement of glowing success, Ms. Pelosi should have kept her mouth shut. For in fact, relations between Israel and Syria remained status quo, despite her appearance.

Another problem I had was the timing... leaving a soon to be vetoed spending bill hanging in the breeze while she traipsed around the Middle East. Delays on the funding bill will, according to Maj. Gerd Schroeder, surely cause setbacks in recent military surge progress. To embark upon travel to attempt changes in foreign policy (outside her Constitutional jurisdiction) while leaving our military in the lurch is unconscionable.

Her determination to meddle in foreign relations - most especially with Syria - is beyond troubling. However it's old news for the Dem party ilk to make overtures to the terrorist supporting nation that has/had direct ties to America's favorite terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin. According to Peter M. Leitner, a (former?) senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department, it was the Clinton administration that okay'ed the sale of military grade telecommumiciation equipment to Syria in the 90s. Equipment that well could have contributed to the 911 terrorists' communications slipping under the intel radar.

WASHINGTON -- The dozen or so Islamic terrorists who pulled off the plot to strike at America's nerve centers in New York and Washington spent at least five years researching, planning and coordinating the surprise attacks, U.S. security officials say. And they did it completely in secret, using the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment, some secured by advanced encryption technology that most armies don't have.

Where did they get such state-of-the-art, military-related gear?

snip

"The real issue in this tragedy is how the hell were these people able to plan and coordinate such a strike over a period of months without the NSA intercepting their signals?" demanded Peter M. Leitner, a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department.

Leitner, who reviews commercial license applications for exports of some of the most sophisticated military-related technology, thinks he knows the answer.

"The technology that would allow these terrorists to mask their communications was given away, hand over fist, by the Clinton administration," he said in an interview with WorldNetDaily.

Leitner says the previous administration rubber-stamped the shipment of top-end military-related telecommunications equipment to Syria, which is on the FBI's list of sensitive countries that pose a threat to U.S. security.

"Syria is a terrorist-supporting nation," he said. "They provide infrastructure to bastards like [Osama] bin Laden. They provide backup and support and communications abilities to these terrorist cells."

So what kind of gear has Syria -- and likely bin Laden, by way of Syria -- gotten from America?

Spread-spectrum radios

"We're giving them spread-spectrum radios, which are almost impossible to break into. We're giving them fiber optics. We're giving them a high level of encryption. We're giving them computer networks that can't be tapped," Leitner said.

Spread-spectrum radios, originally designed for military use only, change their frequency constantly.

Thank you Clinton and Albright....

But it appears the inherent bad judgement as it relates to Syria is to be continued by the "new Congress in town" - and quite inappropriately.

As if Pelosi's foot-in-mouth error on the Israeli message wasn't enough, she then traveled to Saudi Arabia where she questioned the lack of women representation in government.

Let's back up a day or so.... This subtle chastising of the Saudis is almost laughable, were it not such a dichotomy of words and recent behavior. Ms. Pelosi, lauded by Michael Savage for having the chutzpah to make a sign of the cross in a mosque in front of a tomb of John the Baptist, managed to effectively negate that action by indulging in the generally mandated wearing of a head scarf by Muslim women. Interesting choice from such a "modern" western woman... especially on the heels of the Dem resurrected ERA issues prior to her trip.

And while so many are quick to equate Pelosi's donning of the scarf to Laura Bush's in a past ME trip, I have to point out the obvious - Laura Bush has never presented herself as a modern feminist, fighting for equality for women. Pelosi never shuts up about her gender and position of power.

Also at cross purposes with this bizarre - yet factually unimportant - wardrobe gesture was Ms. Pelosi's subsequent offhand (and no doubt unwelcomed) observations to the Saudi's on how to run their gov't when she so opposes interfering with foreign regimes in general. Go no....

Congress funding responsible for Iraq war performance?

An absolutely stunning perspective - When the Money Runs Out - from Major Gerd Schroeder in American Thinker today. It addresses the possible consequences (a word the Dems evidently don't embrace in any form) of Pelosi & chums hit and run funding bill, then bolting town for a couple of weeks holiday.

And all centers around what events start in motion (or not) after April 16th.

Murtha claims they won't run out of funds until the end of May. While technically that may be true, it is shown historically to be wildly irresponsible, and not without repercussions, to wait until the bewitching hour before starting the additional funding on it's long, drawn out red-tape heavy paper trail to the guys on the ground. And, unfortunately, Congress has a documented habit of being slow to provide needs for our troops.

What Maj. Schroeder imparts is VERY important. By leaving this funding to last minute, everything can suffer on the ground in Iraq... from reconstruction efforts to valuable intel on terrorists and trust gained with the Iraqis. He describes the delay of monies as basically one step forward when building, construction and dependable performance happens in Iraq. Then three steps back when the cash dries up, and the Iraqis see our aid and performance as inconsistent.

Schroeder lays this out using the most infamous case from the past.... remember the Kerry "I voted for it, before I voted against it" funding bill?

Not only did Congress do their political tap dance on that bill for at least 6 months before it's passage, then there was the delay caused by the battle over who had control of the funds. Needless to say for the guys on the receiving end, needed funds and that much touted body/Humvee armor were delayed over a year from start to finish. However did the media point out the delays for the armor and equipment could have been avoided by focused, diligent action by Congress? But nooooooo... It was blamed on Rumsfeld and the administration instead by saying the troops were ill-equipped from the beginning.

While this may be so, a historic perspective of wars shows we were never properly prepared with equipment for any of them. One can only assess the style of combat once combat ensues.... i.e. jungle guerilla warfare in Vietnam that caught our military by surprise at the onset. In WWII, our troops were training with broomsticks because of a shortage of rifles.

Now that Congress has passed the Iraq Accountability Act, one of the best questions that I have heard is: "when will the lack of funds start hurting the troops?" This is not a hypothetical question. As a matter of fact it has happened before. Most have forgotten this fact. Allow me to refresh your memories.


In September 2003, the money in Iraq was frozen in a battle for the 87 billion dollars that was allocated to the war by Congress. "What fight?" You ask. Most people will not remember. The fight over funds was not advertised in the media very well at the time; but the effects on the troops were significant just the same.


One distinction between then and now must be clear. The fight then over the money was between the State Department and the Department of Defense. The argument was over who would control the funds. But the effect on the troops and the mission was immediate. Even after the money started to flow again in December 2003, the pernicious effects that the lack of funds initiated continued unabated.

Maj. Schroeder then lays out how that delay specifically affected their work on the ground... a serious read here.

But that's not the only example. This slow moving body of puffed up elitist pols did the same last year. The Republican controlled Congress delayed funding until June 15th.

Last month, the Army’s outgoing chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, sounded even more urgent alarms. He said that his service faced “near disastrous” accounting problems last year because Congress did not pass the supplemental until June 15. Schoomaker said that the Army was forced to take extraordinary measures to “slam the brakes” on expenditures.

Again, in 2005 the same thing *almost* happened.

Should the situation get dire, the secretary of defense could invoke the Civil War-era “Feed and Forage Act” to continue war operations. The act allows the military to obligate money for clothing, food, fuel, housing, transportation and medical supplies in excess of available appropriations for the year, without first getting congressional approval.

The authority under the Feed and Forage Act has some limitations, but it allows the military to continue its essential contracts and operations. It requires congressional notification, and Congress has to appropriate the necessary funds after that. Obligated funds can only be disbursed after a congressional appropriation.

In 2005, when the supplemental was delayed until May, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that he would have to invoke the Feed and Forage Act to keep the deployed troops operating because funds were running out at the beginning of May. The supplemental was signed May 5, 2005.

Yes... Congress is pretty much 95% scum, regardless of party, IMHO. I am quite bipartisan with my disgust for all.

Now, the Dem controlled Congress has perhaps stumbled (or planned?) a more creative and politically safer way to lose than in Iraq than the obvious cutting off the funding immediately. If they delay it long enough, it is tantamount to the same thing and they gain "whining rights" about the surge not working. Not only can they easily convince their puppet media outlets to spread the word of failure forthwith, they also have enough historic delays with the opposition in control that they look no worse than their predecessors.

But it still comes down to this... our military's performance has had their hands tied by the Congressional financial games for years. Who are we, the people, to blame for not seeing the results we desire in Iraq? And this year, will we learn from the history of a bitterly embroiled Congress who cannot do the right thing in time?

Probably not. Or, as Rep. Sam Johnson, himself a Hanoi POW in the 'Nam war, says...:

People don't listen to history. If you look back to Vietnam, when we were POWs being held by the Viet Cong, we heard them broadcasting that our Congress had cut off funding. Congress did the same thing then that they're trying to do now—pull money from our war effort. They let the communists overrun South Vietnam after they'd already retreated to the point of giving up. We didn't support South Vietnam, and the communists sensed weakness and moved back in. I'm afraid that's what's going to happen again.

Yes. Our soldiers are once again listening to the media broadcast fund cutting to a much wider listening audience today - due to the new media and info age technology, They will once again be handcuffed in their military strategy by a politically power driven Congress just so they can achieve a desired defeat merely to satisfy a 1000 or so citizens who responded to a poll.

Schroeder sees thru these Congressional games, and tells you now - in advance - exactly how the talking, spinning heads will detail the inevitable chain of events. How the surge is destined to fail at the hands of Congress - and no media anywhere will mention of the lack of timely, responsible Congressional funding as the cause. Ahh... the dangerous game our pols play with our lives when jockeying for power.

So, what will happen starting on 15 April 2007? Just look at September and October 2003. Better yet look are November and December 2003. (It shows how the lack of progress actually slipped into backward momentum.) The bit of progress that we have made over the last 6 weeks will immediately start to crumble. Trust that has been built over years will fade rapidly. The insurgents will use the lack of progress to convince the Iraqi population that we have lied, and quit, while simultaneously increasing attacks that will show the people that the Iraqi government and the coalition can't protect them.

If the money dries up in less then two weeks the violence will rise. Our troops will start to lose the intelligence that the population is giving them to target. The attacks will increase on our forces as well as the Iraqi forces, and the members of Congress and media that oppose the war will take the opportunity to crow about how the surge is a failure. Don't expect them ever tie it to the true friction, which will be the lack of money.

Of course, Pelosi will spend her holiday in Syria and other ME hotspots, parroting the same message Condie and the WH have been saying all along INRE negotiations between antisemitic ME nations and Israel. Right... now that's productive.

Then there's Harry Reid, who's now running around threatening to cut off funding if Bush vetos the end of combat deadline. Well, Harry... bozo that you are. You are already cutting off the funding by your non-performance, according to Schroeder's history account. What twits we have as elected ones. Small wonder Congress approval numbers make Bush look like the prom king.

Add Barack Obama, who evidently didn't get the party caucus talking points from the Reid camp. Obama instead says no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops." After a Bush veto, Congress will fund the troops without the timeline, per the junior Senate star. Can you say too little, too late?

All in all, examining Congressional behavior, I have to wonder if our up and down performance in Iraq is nothing more than a direct result of a lumbering, bureaucratic Congressional/department machine.

Congressional appeasement backfiring....

"In Middle Eastern warfare, a classic tactic has been to retreat in the face of strength, but to attack when your enemy withdraws or shows signs of weakness."

Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters in the New York Post

Ah yes... the obvious is yet again over looked by the poll-conscious "new Congress in town". Even promises of delivering Iraq to the hands of fate by a defined date doesn't appease radical, political Islam. Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe gets it and, without mincing words, says so in his column, "The smell of irresolution".

Begs one to question their "phased withdrawal or redeployment" idiocy. You leave troops there with few buddies to watch their back, they will be slaughtered. But does a Congress care? No. They are absolutely clueless to the consequences of their demands. They are not military strategists. They are lawyers and poll suck ups who know nothing about the nuances of war.

HERE'S A puzzle: Why would Al Qaeda choose the past several days, just as Democrats in Congress were voting to run up a white flag and commit the United States to defeat in Iraq, to launch a bloody wave of terrorist atrocities?

For weeks, there had been noticeably less bloodshed and chaos in Iraq's most dangerous areas. The number of civilians murdered in Baghdad, for example, had dropped from 1,222 in December to 954 in January to 494 in February. US military deaths had dropped 20 percent during the first month of General David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy , while the number of suspected terrorists captured had soared tenfold.

Nevertheless, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate chose to move ahead with legislation requiring the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Of course a US withdrawal is precisely what Al Qaeda wants -- Osama bin Laden has crowed that "the failure of the United States . . . in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." Wouldn't it have made more sense, then, for the terrorists to continue lying low, doing nothing that might queer the American retreat?

What could Al Qaeda have hoped to gain by shattering this relative lull with last week's horrific attacks? The carnage included a suicide bombing in a Baghdad market that killed at least 60 people, mostly women and children, and a triple car-bomb massacre in Diyala province that left 28 civilians dead. But why now? With Washington's top Democrats embracing the surrender agenda -- Senate majority leader declared on Tuesday that "this war is not worth the spilling of another drop of American blood" -- why would the terrorists unleash a renewed wave of slaughter and mayhem?

continue reading here

WaPo criticizes Dems Iraq failure plan

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq
It makes perfect sense,
if the goal is winning votes in the United States.

Hard to believe the above headline/subheadline came from today's Washington Post editorial pages. It is a rare and surprisingly critical account of "The Pelosi Plan for Iraq". The traditionally liberal rag points out the obvious... that the "plan" to withdraw by setting unreasonable benchmarks doesn't address what happens to the fledgling Iraqi govt after US troops leave them to the wolves. Nor the dangers that presents to our national security. Kudos to the editors on this one.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

More "Blame Bush" from Pelosi

Speaker Pelosi lays the Walter Reed scandal at Bush's feet calling it part of a "pattern of neglect" by the WH admin.

Linking it with FEMA failures in the catastrophic Katrina aftermath, and lack of health care for 1st responders, Pelosi apparently forgets that she/Congress are the architects of the specifics of failed gov't entities, including the historically feeble FEMA. The blame of failed Pentagon and military programs - a Pentagon this WH largely inherited from previous administrations - does not rest solely the shoulders of a sitting President. Where was their oversight in the past decades? Do they think this building and it's condition happened only in the last 5 years?

While Bush is as surprised and appalled as the rest of us at "bldg 18", and has ordered condition inspections of other facilities to make sure this is not happening elsewhere, Ms. Pelosi instead concentrates on scoring political points in her "Hate Bush" campaign. She would be far more effective going back to Congress and reviewing the purse strings and structure of these top heavy bureaucratic programs they themselves create and oversee.

Nancy Pelosi: An Out of Body Experience

Pelosi: Bush thinking on Iraq 'impaired'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she believes President Bush's judgment on the Iraq war "is a little impaired."

She also said his approach to Iraq is based on personal conviction, rather than political judgment.

"What I don't think is that it is a political decision on the part of the president. This is what he firmly believes," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live."