Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  

  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

    al qaeda barbarism big government blogging colorado congress corruption culture democrats denver economics economy elections environmentalism firearms freedom global warming gop gun control guns health care human rights humor iraq islam islamofascism israel journalism leftists liberty media bias military moonbats msm music obama politics presidential candidates republicans socialism soldiers spending terrorism war weather

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘congress’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Libertarian BDS

Posted by Richard on October 25, 2007

Last week, I noted yet another bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS): in the run-up to the SCHIP veto override vote, California Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark declared that we're sending troops to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement" and that "Bush just likes to blow things up."

A couple of days ago, under pressure from his own party and facing censure for violating House rules, Stark apologized. That greatly upset the anti-war crowd, including at least some libertarian elements. Megan McArdle noted that "anti-war libertarian flirtation with the Democratic party may be even shorter than I expected," to which commenter Paul Zrimsek replied wickedly: 

There's literally dozens of votes down the drain. And all to appease maybe a few million people who believe Congressmen shouldn't behave like jerks.

McArdle's post linked to an angry rant by Jim Henley at the libertarian Unqualified Offerings (emphasis added):

Here’s the thing to realize: Pete Stark is a powerful guy. I won’t argue that he’s one of the Secret Masters of the World or anything, but California’s most senior Congressman, ranking member on some powerful committees, has a lot more status and access than you or I do.

And his own party leadership joined their supposed minority opposition in rolling Pete Stark in his own shit. The message is clear. Whatever you want to call it – The War Party, the Beltway Consensus, the institutional structure of contemporary American politics, the Movement, whatever – will not brook consequential dissent. Individual congressmen aren’t that consequential, but they matter a lot more than anyone blogging.

“There are five thousand people in the world,” Mr. Van Arkady told Lauren Slaughter. The rest of the story is devoted to her discovery that she is not one of them. The last thing he tells her is, “You can still be killed.” Pete Stark probably isn’t one of the five thousand either. But he knows some of them. He’s too close to get away with loose talk. And he can still be killed, though it rarely comes to that, because it doesn’t have to.

If you like that over-the-top expression of BDS, check out some of the 100 or so comments, including this gem from co-blogger Thoreau:

So what’s in the file that they showed him? Dead girl? Live boy? Or is it just surveillance footage of his family, followed by statistics on brake failures in the model car that his kid drives? Or a document showing some problems on a tax return, followed by data on prison rape?

These people are not just deranged, they're remarkably stupid, too. Why would the Republicans coerce Stark into apologizing? Crazed, offensive remarks like that by your opponents are a gift that keeps on giving — for fundraising, motivating your base, putting other Democrats on the spot, … Republicans were probably hoping that Stark would make more such outrageous statements.

Later, after feeling the wrath of McArdle's "minions," Thoreau (and then Henley) walked it back a bit, acknowledging that Stark's apology wasn't necessarily coerced by Republican physical threats or blackmail (heck, it could have been Democratic threats or blackmail — they're all part of the same "ruling consensus"). But in acknowledging that he may have been "too paranoid," Thoreau tossed off the phrase "if both parties view it as beyond the pale to call the Emperor for what he is" — thus asserting that Stark was "speaking truth to power" when he claimed that soldiers die and things are blown up for Bush's amusement.

If that's not a serious outbreak of BDS, I don't know what is. I don't even want to venture into the comments accompanying those two newer posts. 

I can certainly sympathize with the plight of Stephen Green, who tore up his Libertarian Party membership card without finding anything with which to replace it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

SCHIP override fails, BDS worsens

Posted by Richard on October 18, 2007

The House this morning failed to override the President's veto of a Democratic bill mandating a massive 140% expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — which, despite the name, is a federally-funded program that covers many adults (adults are the majority in some states), and despite the tear-jerking tales of poverty and need, has replaced private insurance for many families with incomes of $60,000, $70,000, or more.

But before the vote, Rep. Pete Stark exhibited yet more serious symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome (Michelle Malkin has a video clip), which is becoming increasingly virulent and appears to be completely resistant to treatment (emphasis added):

A longtime war critic, Stark said the president couldn't find $35 billion to expand SCHIP but at the same time had requested an extra $200 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq.

"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark said.

"President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto," he continued.

The President, meanwhile, despite six years of evidence to the contrary, still clung to his childlike faith that if he just showed enough compassion by throwing money at Democratic causes, people like Pete Stark would grow to like him. Bush originally proposed "only" a 20% expansion of the SCHIP program, which led to accusations of child murder. Now, he says he's ready to negotiate a "compromise" bill with the Democrats. I suppose that means expanding the program somewhere between 20% and 140%. 

Given today's muddled moral and intellectual climate, I suppose it's fruitless to insist that a State Children's Health Insurance Program, if it must exist, ought to exist — and be funded — at the state level.

But the President just won the initial fight over SCHIP, despite a huge, multi-million-dollar advertising and PR campaign by Democrats and their supporters. If he had any cojones or commitment to the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government that his party supposedly represents, he'd counter-offer with a bill cutting funding by 20% and limiting coverage to children only, and to households in the bottom two quintiles of household income (lower and lower middle classes). Or at least the bottom half of household income — jeez, that's not exactly harsh!

If you own a $300,000 home, commercial property, a Volvo SUV, a Suburban, and an F250 pickup, you should have been buying your own damn insurance. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

How FISA protected al Qaeda kidnappers

Posted by Richard on October 17, 2007

Apparently, it's a very small world when it comes to telecommunications. Two people having a cell phone conversation in Iraq are likely to have that call routed through American telecom infrastructure, where it could be intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies. But under the old FISA law (which the Democrats are trying to restore and further tighten this week), they'd need a warrant. It could be granted retroactively, but first someone has to stick their neck out and grant emergency permission based on the belief that the warrant will later be approved. Think bureaucrats and political appointees are eager to do that?

The problem isn't entirely theoretical, according to a New York Post story. On May 12, while the strict FISA rules were still in effect, al Qaeda gunmen in Iraq attacked a U.S. outpost, killing four soldiers and taking three others — Spc. Alex Jimenez, Pfc. Byron Fouty, and Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr. — hostage. The subsequent frantic search led to information possibly identifying the kidnappers. U.S. intelligence agents asked for permission to intercept communications that might lead to the kidnappers and their captives:

Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."

Democrats supporting the tightening of FISA denounced the release of the story as a cynical attempt to politicize the search for the soldiers. Fox News has a fair and balanced presentation of both sides, along with a detailed timeline. The Democrats' House Intelligence Committee staff argued that it shouldn't have taken NSA lawyers five hours to determine that they had probable cause, and it wouldn't have been necessary to track down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in Texas if three other Justice Dept. officials authorized to approve the request had been available.

Granted, five hours seems like a long time for lawyers to hem and haw over probable cause. But consider the climate. These people knew there was an ongoing surveillance firestorm, complete with leaks to the New York Times, congressional hearings, lawsuits, endless political posturing, and threats of legal action. If you were an NSA attorney, how quickly would you stick your neck out and say, "I recommend going ahead, and I guarantee the FISA court will retroactively approve"? If you were Gonzales or one of the assistant AGs, wouldn't you carefully review the material presented to you before authorizing the intercept, knowing it could land you in front of a hostile committee with the news cameras rolling?  

The Democrats' argument amounts to saying that the restrictions wouldn't have been a problem if the officials involved had just acted without regard for the possible consequences — the consequences that those same Democrats have done their best to hang over the officials' heads.

It's nice that Democrats are so concerned about our privacy now, considering how hard they worked to undermine it for umpteen years (remember Carnivore, "key escrow" encryption, "Know Your Customer," and John Effin' Kerry's repeated attempts to further destroy financial privacy?). But do we have to protect the privacy of what amounts to battlefield communications by our enemies during a war? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The real goal of SCHIP

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2007

About six years late, President Bush finally vetoed a bloated spending bill — the massive 140% expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) passed by the Democrats (Bush had proposed "only" a 20% expansion). As you might expect, there were plenty of Republican senators who voted with the Dems — enough to override the veto. But on the House side, it fell a couple of dozen votes short of a veto-proof majority, so Dems are mounting a major effort to swing more squishy Republicans, with my congresscritter, Dianne DeGette, leading the way. 

It's a particularly egregious fraud of a program, promoted as helping poor sick children (who doesn't want to help poor sick children?). But the "children" are up to 25 years old and not very poor — and the majority were already insured (emphasis added):

Under SCHIP, the taxpayers fund health coverage for children in families of four earning as much as $72,000 per year, though not all eligible families enroll. Democrats in Congress want to open the program to families of four earning $83,000 per year or more. President Bush is OK with expanding SCHIP to cover well-off families – but only if the states enroll 95 percent of those lower-income children first.

Yet SCHIP is senseless. Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid, the program forces taxpayers to send their money to Washington so that Congress can send it back to state governments with strings attached. Both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder – and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else.

SCHIP casts a much wider net than suggested by its stated purpose – namely, providing coverage to children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (which ostensibly serves only the poor) but still can't afford private insurance. According to a study in the journal Inquiry, 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private coverage when the program was created.
…

Inevitably, many families simply substitute SCHIP for private coverage. Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell University find that, in effect, when government expands eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, six out of every 10 people added to the rolls already have private coverage. Only four in 10 were previously uninsured.

The financing of this massive 140% expansion is also egregious. First, the proponents are, in the time-honored tradition of all entitlement expansions, grossly underestimating the long-term costs. Second, they claim that they're "paying for it" with a 156% increase in the cigarette tax, but:

… according to the free-market Cato Institute, even that won't be enough. Americans have been slowly kicking the cigarette habit in recent decades. But to fund SCHIP at its expected expenditure levels in 2020 would require some 22 million new smokers.

Of course, there won't be 22 million new smokers. That means a rise in general taxes — not on smokers, but on you.

This is what the Democrats have mastered: creating a phony need, then proposing a tax on someone unpopular to fix it. When taxes don't come in as expected, they raise taxes on everyone.

It should be noted that SCHIP was initially enacted in 1997 with lots of Republican support (there are always plenty of Republicans eager to demonstrate how compassionate they are in the vain hope that liberals will like them more). And you have to marvel at the folks in Washington of both parties, who see no problem with enacting a State Children's Health Insurance Program at the federal level. 

But the SCHIP program was a Democratic idea, and according to a recent Politico article, specifically a Clinton staff idea with a hidden long-term goal (emphasis added):

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff saw federal coverage of children as a "precursor" to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled "Kids First," Clinton's staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn't qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

"Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children," the memo says. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures."

The Clintonistas, already salivating at the prospect of returning to the White House in January 2009, are no doubt also already planning those "future program structures" for health care. A big expansion of SCHIP now would be helpful when it's time for the next phase. Plus, it would further weaken the Republican Party's tattered remnants of a principled opposition to complete government control of health care.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Petraeus Report

Posted by Richard on September 11, 2007

Are you interested in more than a 20-second sound bite from Gen. Petraeus and some "interpretation" of his remarks by a talking head? Investors Business Daily has the complete text of his report to Congress.

Democrat after Democrat, in smarmy semi-polite terms, has called Petraeus a liar and a stooge of the Bush Administration. Read what he said and see if he sounds like a liar and stooge to you. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Slandering the general

Posted by Richard on September 10, 2007

Remember when the left's mantra was "listen to the generals"? That was when Abizaid and Casey were pursuing a failing strategy, blaming it on a "civil war," and saying that more troops wouldn't help. Now that Gen. Petraeus (who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, remember) has implemented a successful strategy, put the lie to the "civil war" meme, and shown that a few more troops, if effectively used, make all the difference in the world, the left doesn't want to listen to the generals anymore. It doesn't even want to accord them any courtesy or respect.

In the run-up to Petraeus' testimony before Congress, Democrats have finally embraced the idea of pre-emptive strikes — against our troops. Sen. Durbin accused the general of "manipulating statistics" before hearing what the general had to say. Sen. Feinstein, who praised Petraeus lavishly when confirming him, dismissed what he had to say because "I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view in that sense. General Petraeus is there to succeed." 

And this morning's New York Times features a full-page ad paid for by George Soros and MoveOn.org headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House." As Pete Hegseth of Vets for Freedom put it:

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.
…

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership –as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

None of this is surprising, really, and not just because of differences over the war. Consider Feinstein's remark, because it illustrates a key characteristic of today's left. Petraeus is determined to succeed, and to Feinstein that's an unforgivable flaw.

The left doesn't like successful, achievement-oriented people, and generally works to punish success and pull down high achievers. They liked the generals who just muddled along, keeping their heads down and accomplishing little. They supported the troops as long as the troops weren't killing too many of the enemy and weren't making too much progress. They deny success is happening because they don't want it to be possible, and they'll work to undermine it. 

Isn't that just what they do regarding economic policy, taxes, regulation, education, and so on? The left's resentment of achievement applies to the military just as it does to business and other aspects of life. It's losers and failures that they're eager to embrace, elevate, and reward.

UPDATE: A Democrat has denounced the Soros/MoveOn ad as "an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress – Democrat and Republican – has a solemn responsibility to condemn." No surprise — it's Sen. Joe Lieberman. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Declaring war

Posted by Richard on August 24, 2007

Whenever the legitimacy of some U.S. military action comes up, libertarians and leftists generally bring up the issue of a congressional declaration of war, arguing that in the absence of a formal declaration of war, war-fighting is unconstitutional.

(Libertarians at least have standing to make this argument. Leftists do not. When they complain that something goes against a strict interpretation of the Constitution, leftists should be laughed at and dismissed as the unprincipled hypocrites that they are.)

Gabriel Malor, posting at Ace of Spades HQ, tackled declarations of war in three recent installments of his "Law Lessons" series. He looked at the Constitution, U.S. history, 18th-century international law, and case law, and he concluded what I've thought for a long time: Congress doesn't have to use specific "magic words" in order to constitutionally declare a state of war. And in fact, it usually hasn't, beginning with the Barbary Wars, as Malor noted in his first installment:

… Indeed, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. It doesn’t say that to exercise that power Congress must perform an arcane ritual of words and actions. There is no constitutional requirement that Congress use the specific words “Declaration of War.” Nor has the use of such language been the usual practice when the U.S. goes to war.

The U.S. has formally declared war only five times. The other 10 or so times a state of war existed between the U.S. and another country or countries, Congress simply authorizes the use of military force. For example, to authorize the First Barbary War, Congress directed President Jefferson “to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.” …

Malor noted some interesting parallels between the First Barbary War declaration and the 2001 AUMF (authorization to use military force) declaration under which we invaded Afghanistan. Both targeted specific actions and their perpetrators rather than identifying a specific enemy. Furthermore:

Even more noteworthy is the fact that both war authorizations leave it up to the President to determine just which individuals or nations fall into the enabling language. (Think of this the next time you hear a hysterical ninny gulping about how the discretion Congress gave to President Bush is simply unprecedented.)

In the second installment, Malor tackled the 2002 AUMF (Iraq War Resolution) and looked at what little case law exists regarding declarations of war. I was surprised to learn that Attorney General Gonzales claims there's a difference between authorizations to use military force and declarations of war. I wonder how many libertarians and leftists realize that they're perilously close to agreeing with Gonzales on this issue.

In the third installment, Malor expressed some further thoughts about informal versus formal declarations of war and looked at 18th-century thinking about the nature and purpose of war declarations.

If you're interested in this topic, read all three posts, and don't overlook the comments; there are some thought-provoking ones. For instance:

Federalist #23 reasoned that the CinC could face an infinite variety of threats and as such, "no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of [national defense] is committed." Madison went further noting that ''The sword is in the hands of the British king, the purse in the hands of Parliament; it is so in America, as far as any analogy can exist." I'm thinking Madison may know a thing or two about the Constitution.

It can't be true! Madison wouldn't say that, would he? It must be a Rovian trick to justify the imperial presidency, perpetual war, and the BushCheneyHalliburton police state! Aaaargh!

Hmm, that little Google search confirming the Madison quote that I tossed into the previous paragraph led me to an interesting Heritage Foundation article by John Yoo about the war-making power. Among other things, Yoo argues that the Constitution deliberately and with good reason gives Congress the power to "declare" war, not the power to "engage in" or "levy" war (verbs it uses elsewhere regarding war). There is much more, well-buttressed with specific examples from the Constitution and contemporaneous documents. I'm going to have to read it more carefully and give it some thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

al Qaeda’s Tet offensive

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

Commentators and pundits have been pondering the meaning of al Qaeda's horrific truck bomb attacks in far northern, peaceful, Iraqi Kurdistan. What prompted them to attack a small, isolated ethnic group, far from U.S. troops, the surge, and disputed territory? Most missed the point.

This attack wasn't aimed at the Yazidis, or at the Kurdistan region, or even at the government of Iraq. It was aimed squarely at NBC, ABC, CBS, and the United States Congress. The Yazidi villages were just a convenient, low-risk target on which to unleash the maximum possible carnage. The reason for killing hundreds of Yazidis is to shock and dismay Americans. Expect more such "media events" between now and September 15.

Today's column by Ralph Peters addresses the issue well (emphasis added):

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.
…

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It's lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they've lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they're spitting it out.

The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.

Peters goes on to explain that, barring the triumph of the "peace at any price" crowd here at home, and despite the likelihood of more massive bloodshed in the near term, the Petraeus plan is working well and the longer-term outlook in Iraq is pretty good. Read the whole thing.

The Islamofascists in general and al Qaeda in particular are masters of media manipulation and propaganda (the founders of the movement learned at the side of the Nazis). They're also keen students of history, and they know all about the 1968 Tet offensive, in which Viet Cong forces were defeated and decimated at every turn, but won a huge victory on the public relations front, leading Walter Cronkite to declare Vietnam a failure and destroying public support for the conflict.

Will al Qaeda be able to replicate Tet? I don't think so. For one thing, the media environment has changed, and we no longer rely on a Walter Cronkite to tell us "that's the way it is." Hardly anyone watches the Katie Courics and Keith Olbermans today. And in any case, if they try to paint an al Qaeda Tet as a tremendous defeat for the U.S., the new media will quickly counter with evidence to the contrary.

But they will no doubt try, and it will get ugly. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Call for Victory

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

Today, MoveOn.org members are pressuring members of Congress to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and order an immediate retreat from Iraq. Vets for Freedom and Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission are urging people to call or fax their Senators and Representative to counter the defeatists' efforts:

Veterans of the Iraq war have joined with families of those serving and sacrificing in Iraq to focus on the cost of a U.S. defeat in Iraq. On Thursday, August 16, they will fight back against efforts by MoveOn.org to bully the American people into ending the mission just as it is showing significant signs of progress.

"As families of those who are serving or have made the ultimate sacrifice, we must educate our fellow Americans about the need to continue the mission and the terrible price we will pay if we retreat now," said Merrilee Carlson, the president of Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission.

Added Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom: "Moveon.org will talk a lot about the money we are spending. But what they won't discuss – and what in truth they just don't care about – is the overwhelming cost of U.S. and Iraqi lives and security if we give up too soon and lose this war. As veterans of Iraq who have served on the ground, we understand the progress that is being made and we know the terrible price that America will pay if we were to pack up and leave without defeating al-Qaeda."

They noted that possible outcomes of defeat include:

  • A bloodbath in Iraq, costing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and possibly destabilize the entire Middle East region.

  • A failed state in Iraq and a safe haven for Al Qaeda to plan future attacks against America and her allies.

  • An emboldened Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons and a victorious Al Qaeda in pursuit of new ways to kill Americans at home and around the world.

Both organizations are urging their members, and all Americans who support the mission, to use August 16, 2007 to educate their members of Congress about the cost of defeat, to write to their local newspapers explaining the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and to engage their fellow citizens to discuss the issues at stake. Vets for Freedom will encourage all of its members to call their members of Congress on August 16.

For all the info you need to contact your congresscritters, go to this Victory Caucus page and enter your ZIP code.

I've been remiss, BTW, in not raving about the new Victory Caucus site. It's become an indispensable portal for news of the Iraq campaign. If you want links to the latest reports from official U.S. sources, blogs, new media, and MSM, along with up-to-date metrics on Iraq (imagine that — actual empirical data!) and reports/commentary from troops on the ground, this is the place. Visit the Victory Caucus regularly to stay informed about Iraq (better informed than CNN, which relies on the "narrative" of Michael Ware). I'll help by adding them to the sidebar shortly. 

Vets for Freedom is another great place for war updates, especially information by and about the troops. And if you're an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran, sign up now for their September 17-18 Vets on the Hill project.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Targeting our weak spot

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2007

Glenn Reynolds, with an assist from a reader, came up with the best damn Iraq post I've seen in quite a while. Like much good humor, it's based on truth — in this case, a bitter truth. Because my legions of fans may not all have seen the post at Glenn's little blog, here it is:

THE MAIN FRONT IN THE WAR IS CONGRESS:

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

Well, if they're targeting Congress they're certainly targeting our weak spot.

UPDATE: Reader Drew Kelley emails: "Wouldn't we be better off if we gave them Congress?"

As I've said before, I oppose torture.

 <RIMSHOT />

Oh, and to further fill your needs for humor and a way to vent, don't miss Glenn's multipart Jimmy Carter poll.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

We win, they lose

Posted by Richard on May 2, 2007

If you share my contempt and disgust for the Democrats' embrace of defeat, if you agree that the war is lost only if we retreat or surrender, if you think America's strategy for dealing with the global Islamofascist movement should be the same strategy that Ronald Reagan adopted toward the Communist bloc — "We win, they lose" — please sign the petition below.

But first, click here to email your friends and urge them to sign it, too.

(NOTE: If you don’t see the petition below, you have JavaScript turned off. Go to We Win, They Lose to sign.)

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Stupid Party

Posted by Richard on April 27, 2007

The Washington Post reported the other day that an aide to Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) called U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton's office just six weeks before Alberto Gonzales terminated Charlton. The aide was seeking information about a federal investigation into a land deal involving the congressman's former business partner, and in accordance with Justice Dept. rules, Charlton notified his superiors of the potentially improper contact from Renzi's office. Captain Ed took a dim view of yet another Gonzales misstep (emphasis added):

First, we should point out that Charlton's removal did not end the investigation. The FBI raided Renzi's home last week, and Renzi stepped down from his committee assignments as a result. If he corrupted his office and sold out his constituents, it does not appear that Charlton's termination has kept that from coming to light.

That being said, this makes the entire process of terminations look even more suspect. At the least, it shows political stupidity on a scale so grand as to be almost unbelievable. Who in their right mind would fire a federal prosecutor who just had improper contact from the Congressman he's investigating — especially in the days after a Democratic takeover of Congress? That call should have alerted anyone with any sort of political antennae that firing Charlton would set off all sorts of red flags if that call came to light.

The Stupid Party has certainly been living up to that disparaging appellation lately, and Alberto Gonzales has worked harder than almost anyone to ensure that it does so. If I were inclined toward conspiracy theories, I'd be very suspicious of people like Gonzales. Could the GOP have been infiltrated with sleeper agents who, like the Manchurian Candidate, can be activated at opportune times to do great harm to the party with their apparent cluelessness, corruption, or ineptitude?

Of course not, I remind myself. Remember Occam's Razor. The facts can be adequately explained by stupidity alone. But, hey, it might make a pretty good novel and movie!  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Embracing defeat

Posted by Richard on April 20, 2007

Any day now, I expect Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Shadow Secretary of State) and Sen. Harry Reid (Shadow Secretary of Defense) to announce that they're heading for an undisclosed location in the Middle East to meet with representatives of Syria, Iran, al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Mahdi Army. Their purpose? To begin negotiating the terms of surrender for the United States.

I think Rob at Say Anything has their number:

So Harry thinks the war is lost.  Today anyway.  But just three days ago Reid was still talking about giving the troops a “strategy for success” and giving the troops “every penny” they need.

Which is it?  Are we going to try to be successful in Iraq or are we just going to give up and come home?

I think the answer for the Democrats is “neither.” They aren’t interested in trying to win the war in Iraq (as evidenced by Harry’s declaration of defeat above) nor are they interested in withdrawing gracefully. …

The Democrats want nothing less than a full-scale defeat and embarrassment for the President in Iraq, because that’s what will help them the most politically.  They want that, and they don’t care how many troops have to die to get it.

Burning Zeal and Judicious Asininity thought along the same lines about the undermining of morale, comparing Reid's declaration of defeat to Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw, respectively.

Engram at Back Talk has a marvelous post entitled "When al Qaeda talks…" You really need to read the whole thing, but I can't resist quoting this gem:

I wish al Qaeda would directly attach puppet strings to Harry Reid so they could make him say these things without having to kill 200 innocent Iraqis every few weeks. It would be much more efficient that way.

You ought to read Jed Babbin's new column, too. For a lighter take, you can always count on ScrappleFace: "Reid Supports the Troops Who Lost the War"

But the best counterpoint to Reid's contemptible claim comes, naturally, from a Milblogger in Iraq, SSG Thul (I'm quoting almost the whole post because it's too good to excerpt; but click the link anyway, check out his blog, and maybe leave a note of thanks in the comments):

This is the creme de la creme of what the Appeal For Courage is all about. The leader of the majority party of the United States Senate has proclaimed to the world that the war in Iraq is lost. Done. Over. So what the heck are we still doing here then? Why isn't he making plans to fly us home tomorrow?

Oh yeah, that's right, because we haven't lost the war. In point of fact, we are winning the war, though you would never know it from what the media reports. Here in my room, I have a small TV that stays perpetually on the AFN news channel. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and Fox are all represented. Yet from none of these news sources have I heard even a peep about the fact that the Coalition yesterday announced the transfer of security responsibilities of the 4th Iraqi province to the Iraqi government. Instead we hear about the wave of bombings in Baghdad. Not one of the anchors that are interviewing the 'live from the Green Zone' reporters has apparently taken notice of the fact that the reporters are no longer wearing body armor.

So you might ask how we can be winning the war when all you see on TV news is reports of bombings and death squads and such. The answer is simple. All of those reports come out of Baghdad itself. There are no reporters out here in the provinces. In nearly 13 months, I have seen one reporter here at Al Asad, and that was a gentleman from 60 Minutes who has been following our brigade from training through deployment to Iraq.

The name of this blog comes from the oath I swore when I enlisted in the Army. I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And though I don't consider Sen. Reid an enemy, he surely is not an ally. He is heading a group of politicians who are actively trying to undermine the war effort, and would prefer that we lose the war to further their own political ends. They want to set a timeline for military withdrawal to coincide with the 2008 elections. To further his political career, he is intentionally putting my soldiers and I more at risk.

According to Sen Reid's logic, we would have surrendered to the Germans in December of 1944. During the Battle of the Bulge, the German Army nearly broke the Allied front, and the US suffered one of the highest casualty counts for any battle of the war in Europe. Yet less than 6 months later, the war was over, with Germany surrendering unconditionally.

According to Sen Reid's logic, President Lincoln should have surrendered to the Confederacy in the spring of 1864. The battles of Cold Harbor and the Wilderness, on top of the costly victory at Gettysburg the summer before, were proportionally much worse than the recent suicide bombing campaign in Baghdad. Yet just a year after Cold Harbor, the Confederacy was a footnote in history.

I can only hope that the American people at home will trust the soldiers on the ground instead of the politicians trying to advance their careers. If we can hang on long enough to win the war, it will be a tough time to be a Democrat in America. Stabbing the troops in the back during a war will be hard to live down.

Bravo, Sergeant! Bless your noble heart, stay safe, and know that many here at home support you and your mission and have the utmost admiration for and confidence in our troops.

The Appeal for Courage that the Sergeant mentioned is something I blogged about last month. If you're active duty military, Reserve, or National Guard, please go there and sign up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Wright precedent

Posted by Richard on April 18, 2007

At least one Democrat has already called on his party to dump Nancy Pelosi for its own good. Jerry Zeifman served as House Judiciary Committee counsel for 17 years and was its chief of staff during the Nixon impeachment. He thinks Pelosi is bad for the country and bad for his party (emphasis added):

On April 6, a Washington Post editorial aptly described Mrs. Pelosi's trip to Demascus as a "pratfall," which the dictionary defines as "a fall in which one lands on the buttocks, often regarded as comical or humiliating."

In my view that word was a discrete understatement. As a lifelong Democrat and former congressional chief counsel I regard her conduct as an unconstitutional abuse of power that warrants her removal by our Democratic caucus.

As I previously noted in my NewsMax article of April 7, she persistently fosters what Thomas Jefferson denounced as "tyranny by the majority," and violates House rules that give her the duty to maintain order, civility, and decorum, and to foster "comity" (a word rarely used these days, meaning "mutual respect").

Her trip to Damascus was more than a blunder. In denying President Bush's request as well purporting falsely to Speak for Israel it was a usurpation of presidential power.

As a result of her defiance of the president, Democrat Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff to President Clinton, cautioned in the April 2 New York Times that if the Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on other than [domestic issues] . . . that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."

Zeifman remembered another failed Democratic Speaker of the House:

The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being repeated by Nancy Pelosi.

After Wright became speaker, five South American presidents had agreed on a peace plan which the Reagan administration vigorously opposed. Anti-Sandinistas and contra hardliners became incensed when they learned that Speaker Wright had secretly sat in on a meeting between Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo the Catholic leader being asked to mediate the peace. Then House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich began filing numerous accusations in the Ethics Committee of malfeasance by Wright. In the end the House Democratic caucus determined that Wright had lost his effectiveness as speaker and compelled him to resign.

Zeifman may be right about Pelosi reprising the role of Wright. But who's going to play Gingrich's part?

Once again, the lack of real leadership among the Republican leadership is manifest. Decent Democrats like Zeifman have to step forward and take the stands that Republicans lack the courage, will, and sense of purpose to take. Pitiful.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Blood on their hands”

Posted by Richard on March 29, 2007

Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward had harsh words for the senators who voted for retreat and surrender in Iraq:

The senators who voted to undercut our troops have blood on their hands — the blood of U.S. troops who will die from attacks by terrorists who will be emboldened by the Senate's cowardice," said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

"Our troops on the ground in the middle of a war don't need to have their missions' undermined by some armchair generals in Washington, D.C. If these senators won't stand behind our men and women on the frontlines, then perhaps they would prefer to stand in front of them," Morgan said.

Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, failed in their attempt to remove a March 31, 2008 "surrender date" from a bill funding U.S. military operations.
…

"Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit, and re-plan until the day we leave," McConnell said during debate on the bill.

He also said the consequences of having U.S. troops "walk away" will be devastating: "a Sunni minority exposed to the whims of the Shia majority, ethnic cleansing, and regional instability."
…

The Senate vote sends a message to terrorists that they are winning and that congressional leaders "lack the will and resolve to win the war on terrorism," said Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward.

She said her group is launching a national advertising campaign that will single out those who "seek to undermine support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."

To the Democrats, emboldening the terrorists, discouraging the Middle East's advocates of freedom and modernity, and encouraging ethnic cleansing are small prices to pay for the opportunity to force a U.S. retreat just in time for the 2008 election season.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »