Bush Must Read the Journal Sentinel Editorial Page

So....

Yesterday, the Journal Sentinel editorial page demanded, "Give specifics, Mr. President" (see yesterday's blogs).

So today, the White House published the specifics. "A National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

Read it.

Hopefully, now, we can have a fruitful national debate about the plan instead of the incessant whining that there isn't one.

I can't wait to see what kind of coverage this gets in the mainstream media.

She was FOR withdrawal before she was AGAINST it

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing course, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday endorsed a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

``We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable,'' Pelosi said. ``That is what the American people and our troops deserve.''

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn't be calling for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because ``a vote on the war is an individual vote.''

Nevertheless, she said: ``I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.''

So, I have one question for Nancy Pelosi. Why didn't you vote FOR the November 18th Congressional resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq, if you were so convinced that it was the right thing to do?

Actually, I have two questions....

What has happened in the last week-and-a-half to make you change your mind?

Okay, okay, so make it three....

What sort of mind-altering drugs are you on?

The House voted overwhelmingly against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Nancy is unwilling to put it to another vote, but she believes that a majority of Dems support Murtha.

Wow.

Is this specific enough for you?

Latest Journal/Sentinel editorial on the progress of the war, entitled "Give Specifics, Mr. President".

Wednesday, President Bush is scheduled to make the short trip from Washington to Annapolis, Md., to give a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy assessing progress in Iraq and also in what he calls the broader war on terrorism. The president, who has often made reassuring statements about such progress, should take this opportunity to complement those words with convincing evidence.
Americans deserve to know whether at home they are safer from terrorists today than they were on 9-11. They also deserve to know whether in Iraq progress is being made in taming the terrorist insurgency.

Yes, I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream media would report on the facts surrounding these topics, instead of endlessly harping on the suicide bombings and Vietnam analogies? Why is the press absolutely silent on giving the American people any context by which to judge the true progress of the war?

So how's this for a specific? We win. We defeat the terrorists. We help the Iraqis establish a representative government and a constitution. We help them rebuild their infrastructure--roads, schools, power. We train their troops and fight alongside them until terrorism subsides. "No end but victory." I think that qualifies as a strategy.

What do the Democrats offer? Well, according to golden boy Jack Murtha (whom no one can criticize, since he is a Vietnam veteran--a rule that only applies to Dems and libs, since the Swift Boat Vets were certainly 'fair game' in the last election), and I quote..."There is no exit strategy. The path to victory--victory is not a strategy." (from Hardball transcript)

Victory is not a strategy? Well, is defeat a strategy? Is surrender a strategy?
To help us understand this concept, the Journal Sentinel goes on to explain how a non-victory strategy might work.

The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is the establishment of a target date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. (emphasis mine)

The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is to announce to them when we are going to withdraw? Come again? (Take that, you terrorists! We are going to run away!) The Journal Sentinel editorial writer must have graduated from the French school of warfare....

Iraqi soldiers will have little motivation for the difficult work of fighting terrorists as long as they know the Americans will be there to help them out.

How can they possibly think that the Iraqis have insufficient motivation for fighting terror? This is their country. Their lives are at stake. Their children's futures are at stake. To think that they have no motivation to protect and rebuild their own country is an insult to their integrity and bravery.

Unfortunately, Bush has rejected target dates. Instead, his strategy can be summed up in the phrase, "As they stand up, we will stand down." That is, as Iraq's security forces become better prepared to take on the insurgents and defend their country's fledgling government, America's forces will be able to leave. That process, Bush insists, will not be driven by a calendar.

And I thank God every day for his integrity.

As a practical matter, however, Bush cannot ignore the calendar. Because the war has become unpopular, he will be under irresistible pressure next year to make troop reductions before midterm elections. In fact, plans for such cutbacks have already been made. Also, it is very possible that the Iraqi government will demand a troop reduction; recently, some 100 Iraqi political figures meeting in Cairo called for a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Unlike his political counterparts in the Democratic party (whose hypocrisy was unveiled for all to see on Friday, November 18th, when they spent hours accusing Bush of lying, calling the war a mistake and a quagmire and then refused to vote to withdraw our troops), Bush is more interested in doing the right thing for our country and for the Iraqis than in the latest 'popularity poll' on the war.

Actually, the mere thought of trying to measure the 'popularity' of a war is really ridiculous. No wars are popular. No troops deaths are desirable. No civilian casualties are 'acceptable'. But an America who is unwilling to fight its enemies, to protect its allies, to protect its national interests--that would be an America 'not worth dying for' to quote Cindy Sheehan.

This pressure to reduce U.S. forces adds urgency to the job of training, equipping, motivating and fielding a home-grown Iraqi army and police force. Bush's upbeat remarks about progress in this effort have been echoed by a leading Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who recently returned from Iraq. Lieberman reports, in an opinion article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, that under a strategy of "clear, hold and build," Iraqi forces are now holding several cities formerly occupied by terrorists.
But how long will they hold them, and will they really build? Reports about these Iraqi troops are mixed and therefore confusing. The Pentagon told ABC News in mid-November that only one Iraqi battalion - about 700 troops - is capable of fighting without U.S. help. There are continuing reports of a lack of discipline in the ranks of the Iraqi army and also reports that terrorists and militias have infiltrated Iraqi police units.
That is why Bush needs to supply abundant and, above all, credible evidence when he talks about Iraq in Annapolis today. Only when he stands up with convincing facts, not slogans, will his critics stand down.

No, I think the Journal Sentinel has it backwards. I think it is high time that the opponents of the war start standing up with convincing facts. We need to see their plan. We need to understand their definition of success. We need a serious discussion of our level of commitment to the Iraqi people and to the success of establishing a representative democracy in the middle East. We need to understand the ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal--not only in Iraq, but also in our dealings with Iran and others.

We need our elected representatives to stop the partisan sniping and work together to have a serious debate about the issues and agree on a plan that all can support (and continue to support, even if it becomes uncomfortable or unpopular). But, unfortunately, I don't think the Democrats have it in them.

Maybe, since they don't have a plan, they should cut and run.

Pix of Cindy you WON'T see on the cover of the New York Times

Here's Cindy, at her book signing near Crawford, last Saturday (November 26th).

















You could almost feel sorry for her.

There IS and WAS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN...a timetable

Great article from Asharq Alawsat, the leading Arabic International Daily, owned by the Saudi Distribution Company. It is written by Amir Taheri.

In the circles opposed to the toppling of Saddam Hussein one word is making the rounds these days: timetable.

Having failed to stop the war that liberated Iraq, and with their hopes of the insurgents marching triumphant into Baghdad dashed, they are now focusing on one issue: the withdrawal of the US-led coalition forces. Some want this to happen immediately, while others are prepared to grant a few weeks or months.

Those Democrat politicians in Washington, who had backed the war with as much enthusiasm as George W Bush, are now using the issue of withdrawal as a means of distancing themselves from their initial positions. The Arab reactionaries who shuddered at the thought of a despot being toppled by foreign intervention are now clinging to the withdrawal slogan in the hope of sabotaging the process of democratisation in Iraq. In Europe, professional anti-Americans of all ilks are trying to cover their political nakedness with the “ withdrawal” fig leaf.

The truth, however, is that a timetable has been in place from the first day of the war that ended the Ba’athist tyranny in 2003.

Yes. Makes you think. Who are the Democrats aligning themselves with, exactly, in calling for us to withdraw from Iraq? The Ba'athists? Al Qaeda? Zarqawi? They all want the same outcome....

Any checklist would clearly show that the Iraq project has been more successful than Saddam nostalgics with to portray. The first objective, to bring down Saddam Hussein, was achieved in three weeks. The next objective was to break the apparatus of oppression created by the Ba’ath. Despite some residual problems that objective, too, has been achieved. Another objective was to break Saddam’s war machine that had been used against Iraq’s neighbours as well as the Kurds and the Shi’ites. After just three years nothing is left of that infernal machine.

One could continue the checklist with the formation of the Governing Council representing the first step towards the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty.

Next on the checklist we have the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis that was accomplished in June 2004.

That was followed by the formation of an interim government, a series of municipal elections, a general election leading to the formation of Iraq’s first pluralist government, the writing of a new constitution and a referendum to get it approved. The next item on the checklist is the general election scheduled for 15 December.

The checklist clearly shows that every objective included in the political programme has been achieved within the exact timeframe fixed by the new Iraqi leadership and its coalition allies.

Indeed. But Ted Kennedy calls the war a 'quagmire'. Russ Feingold calls it a 'flop'. What, exactly, is their definition of success?

With the exception of the Zarqawi gang and its residual Ba’athist allies, almost no one in Iraq wants an immediate withdrawal of he coalition forces. The Iraqis know that their country is located in a rough region with predatory neighbours that cannot be trusted. They see the presence of the coalition forces as a kind of insurance policy against even more brutal intervention in their affairs by several of Iraq’s neighbours.

The idea of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been built into the entire project from day one. It was on that understanding that the Iraqi people chose not to fight for Saddam, thus allowing the coalition to win a rapid and easy military victory. That fact created a moral contract between the people of Iraq and the US-led coalition as co-liberators of the country. The Iraqi people’s part of the bargain was not to prevent the dismantling of the Ba’athist machinery of repression and war and to welcome the chance to build a new political system. The coalition’s part of the bargain was to protect Iraq against its internal and external enemies until it was strong enough to look after itself.

A voice of reason. The Democrats, backed by their allies in the mainstream media, have been yelling 'no plan to win the war', 'we need a timetable', 'the war is a failure' so often that, unfortunately, I think people are starting to believe it. This is extremely dangerous for the U.S.

What matters, however, is that it is up to the people of Iraq and its coalition allies to decide the moment an the modalities of the withdrawal It is a judgment that no outsider could make .. Those who opposed the liberation and those who have done all they could to undo it have no moral right to join that debate.

Read the whole thing.

Nobody's Senator But....

The latest wisdom from Senator Russ Feingold...

"People, I think, feel overall this has been a flop," Feingold said of the war.

A flop? Does he think he is talking about a new sitcom?

and from the Associated Press via Newsday:

"But I do think one thing we can all agree on is that this country is overdue for a cheesehead president. We've never had one," he told ABC's "This Week."

A cheesehead is a native or resident of Wisconsin, a leading dairy state. The term also refers to the yellow "cheese" wedges worn on the heads of Green Bay Packers football fans.

Jeesh. And the Democrats complain that Bush is a dummy.

Poll Results on War Pulled from Murtha's Website

This is priceless. From World News Daily.

The congressman at the center of the battle last week over withdrawal of troops from Iraq removed the results from his own Internet poll on the subject after online voters overwhelmingly opposed his stance.

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., posted the poll after he ignited a firestorm in the House that led to Republicans forcing a quick vote on the issue Friday.

While a revised poll page remains on the site, the link to it from his homepage has been removed, making the survey effectively invisible to the public.

A contributor to Web forum Free Republic.com, however, posted results as of 3:34 p.m. Eastern time.

The call for immediate withdrawal garnered just 12 percent of the more than 12,000 votes.

Please indicate which of the following best summarizes your view on what the United States should do in Iraq:
A. We should immediately remove all troops. 1,562 votes, 12.3 percent

B. We should redeploy to the periphery of Iraq as soon as practical to protect troop safety and give the Iraqis incentive to take charge sooner, not later. 3,239 votes, 25.6 percent

C. We should maintain current troop levels until Iraq builds an army to defend and stabilize their country, even if that takes years. 6,726 votes, 53.1 percent

D. We should re-institute the national draft to increase troop levels to where we can seal the Iraqi borders and stop the passage of insurgents and insurgent-supply missions. 1,146 votes, 9 percent

E. None of the above. 3 votes, 0.0 percent

Hat tip: Jessica McBride's Media Matters

CNN Apologizes for X-ing Cheney's Face

Okay, so here is CNN's response to the flashing X over Cheney's face this week...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CNN apologized on Tuesday and offered a rare explanation from its control booth for a technical glitch many viewers failed to notice -- a large "X" the network flashed over Vice President Dick Cheney's face.

The wayward graphic, which CNN said lasted for about one-seventh of a second, appeared during the network's live coverage of Cheney's speech on Monday addressing critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Word of the snafu quickly surfaced on the Internet, including still photos of the image posted by online columnist Matt Drudge, along with a story suggesting that some who saw the momentary "X" thought it might have been deliberate.

CNN, a unit of Time Warner Inc., later issued a mea culpa saying an investigation by senior management concluded "this was a technical malfunction, not an issue of operator error" and expressing regret for the incident.

The network followed up with a special on-air segment during its "CNN Live Today" broadcast, in which anchor Daryn Kagan joined the network's technical manager, Steve Alperin, in the control room to offer a fuller explanation.

The "X" image, a place-holding marker used by technicians to cue up graphics, is not supposed to be visible to viewers but was inadvertently projected onto the screen by a malfunction in a "switcher" device, they explained.

"So, for all the conspiracy theories out there," Kagan said, " ... that's not what this is about. It's a computer bug that people deal with everyday. It's just that ours was in front of millions of people."

A spokesman for the vice president said Cheney had no comment on the incident.

Democratic Schizophrenia

You must read the latest column from Victor Davis Hanson. He provides a brilliant analysis of the pickle the Democrats find themselves in today, as a result of their inability to take a stand (and stick to it) on the initiative in Iraq.

Hanson is much more articulate than I, but basically, their problems include the following:

*They were for the war before they were against it.

*They run the risk of aligning themselves with the lunatic fringe of the Left.

*They cannot refute the progress we are making in Iraq--so they focus on U.S. casualties.

*They are not sure that the American people are ready to give up on Iraq.

*They are not sure how Iraq is really going to turn out.

This is why you see them doing crazy things like last Friday's vote in Congress--spending hours decrying the war and then voting overwhelmingly against a resolution to withdraw our troops.

Read the whole article.

This Says it All....

CNN Hits New Low

From Drudge:

In a televised broadcast of Vice President Dick Cheney's live speech from the American Enterprise Institute earlier today, CNN flashed a large black "X" over Cheney's face.














See my earlier posts on the manipulation of photo-journalism to make subtle, political points. This is a new low, even for CNN. They had better get to the bottom of it and fire the person responsible. I can't believe that this was just a random broadcasting error.

'War Hawk' Jack Murtha Urged Pullout from Somalia that Emboldened OBL

From NewsMax.com:

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

...

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

We have met the enemy and he is.....us

this powerful email from Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya. I am including the post in its entirety.

We've written here several times about Minnesota's Lt. Col. Joe Repya, who volunteered to return to active duty for service in Iraq at age 59. Joe's previous service includes command of a rifle platoon in Vietnam and flying helicopters in the first Gulf War.

Joe is a classic citizen patriot and activist. He first came to public attention in March 2003 when, disturbed by the anti-war campaign mounted by Minnesota liberals, he arranged for the production of lawn signs saying "Liberate Iraq -- Support Our Troops." His effort garnered a lot of publicity, and Joe eventually distributed 30,000 signs.

Today he writes:

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq in January to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they "Support the Troops" by wanting them to "Cut and Run" before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many American's think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy ove

Democrats don't seem to mind unilateralism....when it is exercised in retreat

And another thing....

In Friday's heated debate in the House over the resolution to withdraw immediately from Iraq, I did not hear one word about the effect of our withdrawal on other coalition countries.

We have a number of allies who have joined us in Iraq. Their men and women are dying right alongside ours. Many of them joined us not only because they support the cause, but also because of their loyalty and friendship to the United States.

While the Dems were foaming at the mouth when we went to war (remember John Kerry's 'global test'?), I did not hear one of them suggest that we huddle with the coalition before making any decisions about our continued involvement in the war. I guess they have repeated the lie of 'unilateralism' so many times that they actually believe it.


How do we expect our allies to react to all this internal discussion of Iraq? Should they just stay in Iraq, holding the bag? Do we realize that all of this U.S. discussion about cutting and running might affect their policies and attitudes about Iraq?

How can we expect our allies to stand firm with us in Iraq (and elsewhere in the world), if we are publicly second-guessing our involvement? How do we think they might respond to accusations that Bush deliberately misled the country (and the world) to enter into war with Iraq? Do you think they might be dismayed? Do you think they might be reluctant to support us in future conflicts?

As our allies see our resolve and commitment begin to crumble, do you think they will just hang around? I suspect that they might want to remove their troops from harm's way. Once they begin pulling their troops, the Left will use this as further rationale for our immediate withdrawal.

Heaven help the U.S. if we prematurely withdraw from Iraq. If we leave these people to annihilation by the terrorists, I don't see how we can ever approach our allies in the future and expect them to support us in foreign conflicts.

It would be a self-inflicted wound from which we would never recover.

More Good News from Iraq

While it looks like Zarqawi is still on the run, this good news was buried in an article in today's Washington Post...

Over the past month, the official said, there has been a series of raids following a surge in tips from Iraqis unhappy with Zarqawi and his operation. These tend to be traditional Iraqi leaders -- sheiks and imams -- upset with the organization, especially its recent execution of Sunni Arabs in Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar. "Their feeling is that al Qaeda in Iraq has overstepped its bounds," he said.

One of our biggest problems in dealing with an in-country 'insurgency' (read: terrorists) is the tacit complicity of their fellow countrymen. Iraqi leaders may have been willing to 'hedge their bets', by outwardly supporting the U.S., but yet doing nothing to stop Zarqawi and his thugs. If they are now willing to turn him in, I think his days are numbered.

Was Zarqawi Killed and Would that be 'Progress'?

Rumors abound that Zarqawi was killed in a gunfight in Mosul on Saturday. Here is the latest story from ABC News. The Jerusalem Post has another article here.

FoxNews tonight reported that, while some of the terrorists were killed by U.S. gunfire, several of them blew themselves up, rather than be captured.

In any case, Zarqawi has been denounced by his family. Hopefully, as his supporters diminish, our chances of catching or killing him will increase.

So, do you think that the Dems would consider this 'progress in Iraq'? Probably not, since they don't consider the following as signs of progress:

*First elections ever
*Drafting of country's first Constitution ever
*Sunnis regretting not voting in first election; urging members to vote in upcoming election
*Rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure
*Creation of an Iraqi military, fighting side-by-side with U.S. troops
*Terrorist encounters changing from strategic military operations to suicide bombings

I think that the mainstream media should have the decency to at least report the number of terrorists killed and captured next to the U.S. death tolls printed daily in the newspapers. The American people need some sort of context in order to understand how the war is really progressing.

It will be a fatal mistake if we make cruicial decisions about our foreign policy based on opinion polls based on inaccurate, misleading information from the mainstream news media.

By the way, I know I'm rambling, but Jack Murtha quoted a statistic (twice) in the floor debate over the withdrawal resolution Friday night. He stated that 80% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. out of Iraq (or don't want us there--not sure of the exact wording--it was late and my blood pressure was soaring). Has anyone seen this particular survey? I would love to know who conducted the survey and how the question was worded.

While I am sure that the Iraqis eventually want the U.S. to leave, thus signaling Iraqi stability and sovereignty, I can't believe that they want us to leave NOW. It would be interesting if someone could do some fact-checking on this one.

Women and Heart Disease

Fascinating blog post from Dr. Helen, who is the wife of Glen Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, on her mis-diagnosed heart attack.

Should be required reading for all women and their physicians.

Perhaps someone should start a 'pink ribbon' campaign for women's heart health.

Thoughts for the Day

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. ~Will Rogers


Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens - and then everybody disagrees. ~Boris Marshalov

Republicans Call Dems' Bluff

In a brilliant stroke of genius last night, the Republicans in Congress called for a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (Good post: A Spine is Detected). This forced the Democrats to basically 'put up or shut up' over the war in Iraq. We listened to the whole thing on C-SPAN Satellite Radio as we were driving up to Minneapolis.

The Democrats have been calling George W. Bush, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief a liar for the past several weeks. So, it is hard to understand their frenzy last night when the following occurred...

Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

It was a very bad idea to have her words withdrawn from the record, because this gives license to the Dems and the media to reconstruct what she actually said. Watch for them to spin this as an 'attack' on Murtha.

Whoa. No sooner had I typed these words than I saw this great post at The California Conservative.

She didn't attack Murtha. She said that she got a call from a fellow legislator who asked her to remind Murtha that cowards cut and run. Since Murtha is suggesting that we cut and run, I guess the shoe fits. While he is (was?) a war hero and deserves our gratitude for serving his country bravely, this does not exempt him from criticism when he makes a cowardly suggestion. (And apparently doesn't keep him from making a cowardly suggestion).

But you had to hear the rest of the debate that evening (and this probably won't be reported in any major media outlet). Murtha used his time at the end of the debate to tell story after story of individual families and soldiers dealing with the tragedy of injury and loss of life.

Now, the American people place a high value on individual lives, unlike the terrorists. No one wants to lose our young men and women (or older ones, for that matter) in a conflict in a distant part of the world that few of us will ever see and most of us will never understand.

That is why the terrorists blow up innocent men, women and children. That is why they kidnap and behead unarmed contractors and drag burned bodies through the streets. To weaken our resolve and cause us to give up. So, by playing up the very same thing that the terrorists have identified as our weakness, isn't Murthau playing right into their hands?

Anway, after hours of bloviating, fist waving and foaming-at-the-mouth, in the end, the vote came down to 403 to 3. So, the 'heroic' Dems after arguing for weeks that...

*We should not be in Iraq.
*Bush deliberately misled the country to war.
*The Iraqi people don't want us there.
*We are making terrorism worse.
*We are causing the rest of the world to hate us.

...voted that *gulp* we should, "stay the course". Kind of makes your head spin, doesn't it?

It will be fascinating to see how the Democrats try to resuscitate the 'let's withdraw from Iraq' mantra after all of the them voted against it.

"Your comments may be recorded for training purposes....."

Check this out.

The American Spectator has a post on their site courtesy of The Washington Prowler, listing quotable quotes from the Democrats on the subject of Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Also, check out the excellent video posted on the Republican National Committee website, showing some of these quotes (and others) in video format.

Either the Democrats think the American people are incredibly stupid, or they are basing their tactics on the world of the 'old media', where they could manipulate history and remain unchallenged.

Rockefeller Lies, People Die

If you have ever watched a magician, you know that one of their key techniques is diversion. While they are waving their wands in the air, or twirling their cape, they distract you so that you don't notice them pulling the coin out of their sleeve.

This has been the approach of the Democrats. Keep harping on the 'pre-war intelligence', "where are the WMDs?" and question Bush's motivations to keep the American people distracted from the true progress in Iraq and the vital strategic importance of nurturing democracy in the Middle East. The Dems have scrupulously avoided any real debate on the war itself or offered any alternative strategies for dealing with either garden variety or state-sponsored terrorism. Business as usual for the Dems.

But recently, they have crossed the line with their tactics. And Bush is finally responding. It is about time.

Senator Jay Rockefeller made an amazing and chilling confession on Fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt from William Bennett's NRO article.

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.

We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons — we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.

Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies — but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.

If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

This is incredible. So. Do you think any of the major media outlets who thought that our national security had been compromised by 'outing' Valerie Plame (which no one actually did, by the way, lest you forget the truth in the constant barrage of lies)--do you think any of them will even report this exchange? Do you think any of them will call for an investigation? Do you think that any of them will call for Rockefeller's resignation? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, Bush has finally stepped up to the plate and is fighting back. He made these comments in his speech at Elmendort Air Force Base in Alaska on Monday.

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now. (Applause.)

The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein. ***

Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.

As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

You can read the text of the speech here.

Go, George, Go. This message is long overdue. It is one thing to disagree with the President's policy. It is one thing to question whether our intelligence community is effective and how we might improve it in the future to gain better information on our enemies. It is another thing entirely to start accusing Bush of deliberately lying and misleading the country. It is another thing to visit leaders of other countries (one a known enemy) and lie to them--undermining our President and our government.

In the old days, we would call it treason. Now, some would call it 'patriotism'.

Bush and the Republicans need to stage a media blitz to refute the lying tactics of the Left. Even if you agree with the anti-war crowd, their tactics should alarm you. Let's debate the issue of Iraq on its merits, not on baseless accusations. And let's remember that our debate is no longer confined to the boundaries of the U.S. We live in a global culture. Messages here, designed for political ends and aimed at the American people, can and will find a very different audience. With very real consequences.

The danger of a campaign based on lies is this...

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

Who said it?

Adolf Hitler.

Think about it.

Palestinian Reaction to Suicide Bombing in Amman

Interesting snippet this morning at the end of an MJS article attributed to Knight Ridder/AP/Washington Post on the recent terrorist attack in Amman, Jordan...

Palestinians mourn: In the Palestinian village of Silet Al Thaher in the West Bank, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by one of the suicide bombers in Jordan -- the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack. (emphasis mine)

"Oh my God, oh my God. Is is possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.

Similar thoughts were heard over and over in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday, as Palestinians expressed outrage over attacks aimed at civilians. (emphasis mine, again).

Indeed.

Palestinians have been targeting Israeli civilians for years, using suicide bombers. It will be interesting to see if this event has any power to change their hearts, now that they have experienced the tragedy of senseless, cowardly attacks on innocent civilians. Note that the bereaved aunt is upset because Arabs and Muslims are killing each other. It would be interesting to know whether this particular family was a supporter of terrorist attacks on Israel.

Opinions on Alito

So much to blog....so little time. I was in Boston this week on business and unable to blog. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published my editorial on the Dems reaction to Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito.

They also published a great piece by Ann Althouse. In fact, if you aren't familiar with Ann, check out her blog at http://althouse.blogspot.com.

She writes good stuff.

Do we care what Prince Charles thinks?

Someone forgot to tell Prince Charles that the U.S. is no longer a colony in the British Empire.

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11. The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.<

From The Telegraph.

Too confrontational? Intolerant? What would be the appropriate level of "tolerance" in response to the horrors of 9/11? The murders at Beslan? The genocide in Darfur? The beheadings of innocent, unarmed civilians?

As far as I know, the American president never declared war against Islam, just against Islamo-fascist terrorism. If we were truly intolerant of Islam, why wouldn't we have banned Islam in Iraq? Why do we provide copies of the Koran and broadcast prayer times for the prisoners in Gitmo? Why don't we ban all Muslims from entering into the United States?

What specifically, does His Royal Highness think that the U.S. should do differently? (not that we care, but my curiosity is getting the better of me).

I think the non-Muslim world would find the 'merits of Islam' more evident if the mainstream Muslim world would become confrontational over the acts of the lunatic fringe. But their silence is deafening.

This excerpt from an article in the Telegraph by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, is compelling.

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

Read the whole thing.

Anyway, it will be fascinating to see what the bonnie Prince advises. I don’t think most Americans really care.

Problems at the CIA

If you are not a regular Powerline reader already, check out "My Favorite Democrat, Part 21" for an excellent synopsis written in plain English on the fishy business surrounding Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

Scott summarizes a Wall Street Journal article (subscribers only) from Victoria Toensing that contrasts the behavior of the CIA in the Wilson/Plame situation with their standard operating procedures and policies.

Either the CIA is woefully inept or they were clearly up to dirty tricks. Read it and draw your own conclusion. Our country needs a strong competent apolitical CIA, now in these days of international terrorism more than ever. Too bad we don't have a Congress who is more interested in getting to the bottom of this than of trying to destroy the White House.