Combs Spouts Off

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

  • Calendar

    February 2026
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

Hsu cools heels in Colorado

Posted by Richard on September 8, 2007

From the Rocky Mountain News:

Norman Hsu, the fugitive Democratic fundraiser who jumped a $2 million bail and skipped a California hearing on a felony theft conviction, is under armed guard at a Grand Junction hospital today.

Depending on his health, Hsu, 56, was to appear before a federal magistrate in Grand Junction this afternoon on unlawful flight charges.

Then he would face extradition to California where state authorities say Hsu is facing a three-year prison term under a 1992 plea agreement.

From Grand Junction's KJCT8 News

A 911 call went over the scanner around 11 am MST Thursday, reporting a man who could not feel his legs, and the need for extraction from the train.

When our reporter arrived on scene the conductor said that it appeared to simply be an elderly man with dementia. That man turned out to be Hsu, who did walk off the train under his own power.

In case you missed it, Hsu (pronounced "shoe") is one of the top Democratic fundraisers (albeit a very low-profile one until now), contributing millions to the coffers of candidates and committees across the country. He's raised more than a million dollars for Hillary Clinton alone. Hsu is a "bundler," combining the checks from many individuals into a "bundled" contribution to a campaign. Bundling is legal, as long as the money is actually coming from the many individuals, and they're not just being used as "straw men" to evade contribution limits or hide illegal sources.

The Wall Street Journal and others have found evidence of coordinated contributions from people associated with Hsu who seem unlikely donors. For instance, the Paw family of San Francisco, living in a modest bungalow near the airport, contributed $200,000 since 2004 to Democrats all over the country ($45,000 to Hillary) — more per year than Mr. Paw's $49,000 mail carrier salary. A New York woman who lists her profession as "self-employed actress" gave $40,000.

Since Hsu's status as a felon and fugitive became known, recipients have been trying to distance themselves without giving up too much of the money. For instance, Clinton is donating Hsu's $22,000 to charity, but she's keeping the $150,000 that came from the Paws and other suspicious associates of Hsu.

Given the Clinton history regarding Chinese-American fundraisers, one can't help but wonder if Hsu is using these unlikely donors to launder money from persons of a foreign persuasion. Don't forget Hillary's other fugitive fundraiser, Abdul Jinnah. And then there was the Peter Paul affair. Now, she seems to have hooked up with yet another fundraiser with a shady past, involving racketeering, extortion, and vote fraud.

The persistent stories about how the Clintons have operated going back to the Arkansas days leave one wondering, too, about Hsu's sudden and curious health problem. He couldn't feel his legs and appeared demented? Hmm… Be careful what you eat or drink, Norm.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a good summary, some original reporting, and a link to an interesting AmSpecBlog post. News stories have described Hsu as a successful businessman in the apparel trade, but Philip Klein was unable to locate any trace of the four Hsu companies listed in campaign finance reports. At least one has a non-existent address. Hsu himself has used at least one suspicious address in filings — he made donations from the Fifth Avenue apartment both before and after it changed hands in 2005.

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

BDS worsens in Seattle

Posted by Richard on September 7, 2007

Bush Derangement Syndrome just keeps getting worse, with sufferers exhibiting increasingly disturbing symptoms. Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Jim Moore describes Seattle's King County as "deep, deep Democratic blue" (and a P-I columnist probably says that like it's a good thing). So it's no surprise that Seattle has more than its share of the BDS-afflicted. Apparently, quite a few of them are so far gone that the thought of a Seattle Seahawk supporting Bush and the Republicans is almost intolerable.

It seems that quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and fullback Mack Strong recently attended a fundraising dinner in Bellevue for Republican Rep. Dave Reichert, along with President Bush. They presented Bush with a Seahawks jersey that had his name and the number 43 on it. (UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a picture.) Uh oh. Incensed liberals inundated the players and the team with hate-filled calls, emails, and text messages (emphasis added):

"I had no idea," Hasselbeck said.

One guy told him: "I hate you, I'll never wear your jersey, I'll never like the Seahawks again."

"Huh?" Hasselbeck thought. "Seriously?"

"Politics can be very mean and dirty," he said. "The things politicians say about each other, and what activists say, I had a brief glimpse of that for a couple of days.

"If I ever had any questions about whether I wanted to run for office, I now know the answer — I don't."

As a quarterback, he's used to getting booed. "But this was a whole new level," he said. "I was very surprised how mean (they were)."

As evidence were these responses to Angelo Bruscas' blog posting on seattlepi.com:

"How dare Hasselbeck declare Bush an honorary Seahawk," wrote one. "Who is Matt speaking for? Bush is no Seahawk. He is the worst president of my lifetime, and I'm almost 60. Shame on you, Matt."

"To learn that two of the most popular Seahawks are strong (Bush) supporters ruins the season for me and my family," wrote another.

This is pathological. There must be some sort of drug therapy that can let these people return to some semblance of a normal life. I mean, imagine what they go through day after day — wondering if the Channel 4 meteorologist is a Rethuglican and can't be trusted, worrying that their fast food lunch might have been prepared by a neocon, suspecting their bank branch manager of being a Cheney/Halliburton stooge. 

Rush handed out some tough love to these fans on today's show (that link will probably quit working in a few days):

You people need to get lives! For crying out loud, do you know how many NFL players I know that love Democrats? It hasn't destroyed my love for the game. You people are just nuts. You people on the left are lunatics. You are certifiably insane. You can't really be fans of the Seattle Seahawks if your fandom can be shaken and destroyed. What kind of emotional midgets are you? The new castrati, you don't have any business being football fans. You're not tough enough to be football fans. If you can't handle your quarterback liking a certain president without having to destroy your season, go see a shrink. Tell you what, you people need help. …

Emotional midgets. I like that. 

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

Schumer slanders Marines

Posted by Richard on September 6, 2007

The Democrats have long insisted that they really do support the troops, that they have nothing but respect and admiration for the troops. Oh, yeah? Wednesday on the Senate floor, Sen. Charles Schumer labeled the Marines in Anbar province incompetent and said they're part of the problem, not the solution. And he insulted Iraqis, too, dubbing the tribal sheiks who are cooperating with us — the men President Bush met with on Labor Day — "warlords."

Duane Patterson has a 5-minute clip from Schumer's speech, but here's the money quote (emphasis added):

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

Patterson observed that "Not only is Schumer calling the American military incompetent, he's calling them liars, as well," and offered relevant quotes from Generals Petraeus and Simmons.

But you don't have to take the generals' word for it. Over at the Outside the Wire blog, JD Johannes has a short clip of LTC Valery Keaveny, one of those inept Marines in Anbar who actually talks with and fights alongside the tribesmen Schumer claims we couldn't protect. Johannes, a former Marine, director of the Iraq war documentary Outside the Wire, and independent war correspondent, added his own observations:

I've been on missions with tribal fighters. I've broken bread with them. I've asked them why they started standing up against Al Qaida and the insurgents.

The answer always involves the brutality of Al Qaida. Never once have I heard an Iraqi say they turned on Al Qaida because the coalition could not protect them from Al Qaida.

Which brings us back to LTC Keaveny's point. If a former insurgent is now working with the coalition–how is it possible the joined he joined the Awakening for protection from Al Qaida.

The second major error in Schumer's revisionist history is that he is trying to rewrite a claim no one should be making–that the surge caused the Anbar Awakening.

The Awakening started around this time last year–way before the surge was ever announced.

Schumer isn't just lying about Anbar and the Marines, though. He claimed that we've just been "pushing on a balloon" and that the improvement in Anbar was offset by a worsening situation in "many other provinces." Bunk. Check out the metrics at The Victory Caucus, especially the map showing attacks per day per province. One, Baghdad, has 51. Three others are in the low 20s and one averages 15. Another six range from 1 to 7. The remaining seven provinces average zero (0) attacks. So Baghdad accounts for a third of the violence, and four of the eighteen provinces account for fully three-quarters of it.

While you're at TVC, check out the Info and News links for more stuff you won't hear on the evening news. Then sign the Stand by the Mission petition.

UPDATE: There is no coherent theme underlying Schumer's opposition to the mission, it's just gainsaying — throwing out whatever comes to mind and hoping some of it sticks. The U.S. failed to protect the Sunni tribes from al Qaeda, he now claims. But until very recently, he and his pals insisted strenuously that al Qaeda wasn't present or was an insignificant factor in Iraq, an administration fiction to divert attention from the "civil war" between Sunni and Shia. And since these Sunni tribesmen were previously fighting us, not al Qaeda, the idea that we let them down is just nonsense. 

UPDATE 2: Rush made a good point today (Thurs.): Since forever, Schumer and other Democrats have argued that the Iraqis need to step forward and take responsibility for their own security. So when the Iraqis in Anbar successfully do that, Schumer sees it as a bad thing. This nonsense on stilts.  

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

Chutzpah cubed

Posted by Richard on August 23, 2007

Today's news contained two such unbelievable examples of chutzpah, of brazen effrontery and unmitigated gall, that they took my breath away:

  •  The Chinese government complained about the quality and safety of U.S. imports and expressed concern about the safety of Chinese consumers and the environment.
  • Democrats angrily objected to President Bush's comparison of Iraq and Vietnam in his speech to the VFW.

How dare anyone compare Iraq with Vietnam! The nerve!

UPDATE: Bush Derangement Syndrome reigns at ABC News, and Ace has preserved the evidence. He also helpfully pointed out that Bush didn't compare Iraq to Vietnam, "he said it would be like Vietnam were we to surrender. Apparently the high-nuanced folks at ABC have not mastered the nuances of the subjunctive or conditional moods." Good point.

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

Democrats “recalibrate”

Posted by Richard on August 22, 2007

When the Iraqi people were risking their lives voting for an interim government, and then for a constitution, and finally, made Iraq the first constitutional republic in the Arab world, the Democrats dismissed or belittled those achievements. Look at all the violence and bloodshed, they said. Political progress means nothing in the face of the ongoing security nightmare, they said. Look at the factional fighting at the neighborhood level, they said.

Now that even Democrats visiting Iraq have to concede that the security situation has greatly improved, violence and bloodshed have all but disappeared in some of the formerly most problematic areas, and we're seeing more and more grassroots cooperation among factions, the Democrats have tweaked their message just a bit. Forget that stuff about political gains being irrelevant due to lack of military progress; now, military gains are irrelevant due to lack of political progress. The Washington Post tried its best to help them spin this shift (emphasis added):

Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.

GOP leaders have latched on to positive comments from Democrats — often out of context — to portray the congressional majority as splintering. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), an Armed Services Committee member who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said many of her colleagues learned a hard lesson from the Republican campaign.

"I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military," she said. "People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies."

The Democrats are going to focus on the Maliki government's failure to meet congressional "benchmarks" for political progress — benchmarks, BTW, written by congressional Democrats to be as unreachable as they could make them. When you're listening to carping about the Iraqi political situation, try to keep two things in mind:

  • The Iraqi parliament has accomplished far more legislatively this year than the U.S. Congress (not that I'm complaining about our "do-nothing" Congress; I'm greatly relieved that Pelosi and Reid have fulfilled almost none of their promises). And they're sharing oil revenue with all the provinces, even though the oil revenue legislation hasn't been finalized.
  • Slow political progress at the national level in Iraq has spurred progress at the provincial, local, and grassroots level. Formerly irreconcilable tribal and ethnic/religious factions are sitting down and reaching agreements. Town councils are springing up and working with coalition troops to solve local infrastructure and security problems.

The slow pace at the national level may actually redound to the long-term benefit of the young Iraqi democracy — it's much better for Iraqi political solutions to grow from the grassroots up than to be imposed from the top down. 

Someone should try to explain that to the arrogant Sen. Levin, who seems to think Iraq's prime minister serves at the pleasure of the U.S. Congress. 

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

Vodka and Democrats for breakfast

Posted by Richard on August 19, 2007

Did you know the Democrats were holding a presidential debate this morning? Neither did I. But the intrepid Stephen Green knew, and he's always ready to make whatever sacrifice of sobriety is necessary for his many loyal readers, so he drunkblogged it. At least he had the decency to switch from martinis to Bloody Marys.

I wouldn't have watched the debate on a bet, but I'm glad I caught the Vodkapundit synopsis, which is both enlightening and a marvelous read. There are funnier parts, but I found this six-minute Iraq segment interesting:

9:29am Democratic voters want to know, "When are we getting out of Iraq?" according to George S [Stephanopoulos, the moderator]. Biden has a new ad, saying that we've got to get out "in a way that doesn't require sending their grandsons back" there in 30 years. Meanwhile, Richardson is arguing for a "full" retreat of every single soldier. "All of the troops out, no residual forces." Now that is what I call a surrender strategy.

9:30am Biden is now answering the Iraq question, and he's the only person in the room — audience included — who sounds like a grown-up.

9:32am Hillary just admitted that, in her role on the Armed Forces Committee, she's been leaning on the Pentagon to start planning her big Iraq Retreat. That's what the enemy needs to hear.

9:33am Except now she's saying that "Joe [Biden] is right." Well — which is it?

9:34am "This is American imperialism we're hearing up here," says Gravel about Hillary and Biden. If that's imperialism, then my three Bloody Marys are examples of sobriety.

9:35am Edwards is still angry. Given the time of day, I suggest he switch to decaf. I can't hear him over the anger, but I can barely see him past the glare of his smile. It's a distracting, not to say nearly impossible, combination.

By all means, read the whole thing. When the talk turned to education and economics, it got simultaneously scary and funny, which attests to Green's great drunkblogging ability. And don't miss his wrap-up, where he offered short and sweet assessments of each of the contenders, and concluded:

Weak field. And while this isn't a prediction, I think the Republicans could (and just might) do worse than a Clinton-Biden ticket.

My first reaction was that Green finally succumbed to the Bloody Marys and misspoke (I mean, mistyped). Surely, he meant the Democrats could do worse than a Clinton-Biden ticket? 

But after thinking about it, I'm not sure. Could the Republicans do worse than a Clinton-Biden ticket? Well, I've learned never to underestimate the Republicans' knack for doing something stupid and self-destructive at the worst possible time. What about it, Stephen — did you mean it the way you wrote it?

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

Hillarycare

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

Let me see if I've got this right: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, the architect of a comprehensive plan to federally micromanage the entire health care system of the United States, and the daughter-in-law of a registered nurse, followed a nurse around "to see what a nurse does"? Yep, that's the story (emphasis added):

HENDERSON, Nev. – Except for the presidential candidate, newspaper reporters, TV crew and Secret Service agents tracking her every step, it was just another day on the job Monday for Michelle Estrada at St. Rose Dominican Hospital.

The nurse's 12-hour shift at the hospital's Siena campus started as usual at 7 a.m. but at mid-afternoon Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived. The New York senator spent more than two hours shadowing Estrada in the fourth-floor medical/surgical ward before heading to Estrada's home for dinner with her and her three children.
"I'm following Michelle around today to see what a nurse does," Clinton explained to the patient in Room 471.

Jeez, we're still a year from the nominating conventions and it's already necessary to recalibrate the irony meter. 

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

Thinking about Obama

Posted by Richard on August 3, 2007

In the last few weeks, as I half-way paid attention to the world of politics, I've learned some interesting things about Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

As a candidate, Obama refused to debate on Fox News because such participation would lend that evil enterprise legitimacy and prestige that it didn't deserve. But he promised that as president, he'll gladly meet with — and lend legitimacy and prestige to — the world's most despicable, murderous thugs and tyrants.

In the past, Obama has praised U.S. intervention in a civil war in Yugoslavia and characterized that as a success, even though we're still there ten years later. Regarding genocide in Darfur, he's criticized Bush for not being willing to "take tough action" and head up a "robust international force … to protect civilians and stop the slaughter."

But when critics of withdrawal from Iraq predicted that that would lead to maybe a million deaths, Obama sang a different tune:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

And now we have Obama the peace candidate, the critic of Bush adventurism and cowboyism and unilateralism, threatening to unilaterally invade Pakistan, an ally (for the moment) with nuclear weapons! Thomas Lifson nailed this one:

Nothing is more dangerous than a naïve appeaser, other than a naïve appeaser who erratically takes rash steps in order to look tougher than he really is. Terrible, tragic events are set in motion by such threats of bluster.

The good Senator is incredibly stupid and foolish.

It's amazing that the mainstream media have essentially given Obama a pass on all the above nonsense and continue to treat him as a serious, first-tier contender for the presidency. He should be ranked alongside Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich. I suspect it's just another example of "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

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

Tangerine dream

Posted by Richard on July 24, 2007

This is so breathtakingly stupid, it sounds like a parody from Scrappleface or Iowahawk, but apparently it's for real. Yesterday, Ben Smith at Politico.com posted this news from the Edwards campaign:

The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, in a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.

"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.

"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.

The Bullwinkle Blog commented:

If … enough people are silly enough to follow her example then a lot of tangerine trees will be chopped down and burned to make room for some crop that will make money so the farmer can feed his family. That's sure to release even more Co2 into the fragile atmosphere!

Won't it also mean that the people who earn their livings transporting fruit will lose their jobs and add to the number of Americans living below the poverty line?

Heck, that's not the half of it. If Elizabeth Edwards shuns fruit that isn't grown locally, what about other foods? What about manufactured goods? In North Carolina, locally-produced lumber, paper, and furniture may be easy to come by, but what about clothing, consumer electronics, refrigerators, toilets, cars, DVDs, private jets, …?

Is Edwards advocating autarky at the state level (it's a long truck ride from the Outer Banks to Asheville), the county level, or for every village and hamlet (big cities would likely cease to exist in Edwards' tangerine dream world)?

The world this lunatic envisions is the pre-modern world. That would fulfill the enviro-wackos' goal of minimizing the human impact on the planet — by getting rid of 80-90% of the humans and condemning most of the rest to peasant status. Then we really would have "two Americas."

I'm probably over-reacting. I'm sure she hasn't thought this through and isn't serious — it's just the typical empty gesture that liberals indulge in to feel good about themselves.

And if Mrs. Edwards gets a yearning for some tangerines, she can go with the moose's suggestion of tangerine offsets.  

 

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

Senate vs. real world

Posted by Richard on July 19, 2007

Harry Reid's all-nighter was all make-believe. At Sen. Barbara Boxer's behest, Reid scheduled the votes five hours apart, so most senators went home or slept in their offices. The cots were just stage props that went unused. The gimmick resulted in fewer jellyfish Republicans embracing defeat than before, so that didn't work out too well for Reid.

Yesterday, Rush played a clip of Sen. Boxer on CNN saying the Democrats' goal was to get our troops "back on track, going after Al-Qaeda" and "out of the civil war."

Meanwhile, in the real world, Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was spilling his guts to his American captors about who we're really fighting in Iraq:

The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella terror group affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq, is led by a fictional character designed to mask that group's foreign influence, a captured terror leader has revealed to U.S. interrogators.

In an effort to give Al Qaeda an Iraqi face, terrorists created "a virtual organization in cyberspace," U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said.

In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, a name indicating Iraqi origin. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.

Al-Mashhadani said that an actor with an Iraqi accent is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web, Bergner said.

To make their fictional leader appear credible, al-Masri swore allegiance to al-Baghdadi and pledged to obey him, which was essentially swearing allegiance to himself, Bergner said.

Al-Zawahiri also repeatedly referred to al-Baghdadi in video and Internet statements, further deceiving Iraqi followers and perpetuating the myth of al-Baghdadi.

So the people we're fighting in this "civil war" that the Democrats want to get us out of are the same people who declared war on us in 1996 and 1998 (and who began waging war against us at least as early as 1993). They're pretending to be an Iraqi insurgency. I'd like to hear Sen. Boxer explain why she's aiding and abetting their deception.

Boxer and the Democrats are also promoting the idea that we've lost and the situation is hopeless, although even al Zawahiri has admitted that quite the opposite is true. In the real, I mean, Riehl World, Dan Riehl did a nice job of illustrating the progress made in the past 18 months in Iraq:

As the light green fills in month by month, those are areas in which Iraqi forces are now taking the lead. As you begin to see dark green, those areas have been turned over to Iraqi forces. Watch the video below, or here – then tell me there is no progress in Iraq. And remember, Senators, America is watching you.

 Progress In Iraq

  

So, to sum up: It's not a civil war. It's not a distraction from the war with al Qaeda. And we're not losing. Any questions? 

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

Fighting for victory

Posted by Richard on July 17, 2007

Today, a hastily-assembled group of Vets for Freedom volunteers made the rounds on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to reject the Reid/Pelosi surrender plan, which the Senate will "debate" tonight in an all-night publicity stunt. It's part of a series of pro-victory efforts that the group originally planned for September, but moved up due to the Democrats' accelerated effort to embrace defeat. If you can spare a few bucks, make a donation, please.

Meanwhile, Move America Forward is moving forward with plans for its September cross-country Fight for Victory Tour, culminating with a large rally in Washington, D.C. on September 15, the day Gen. Petraeus' interim report is due. A donation to help with that project would be nice, too.

A week ago, I cited some of the evidence that the situation in Iraq is improving, despite the Democrat cheerleading for defeat. Since then, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch and Gen. Peter Pace have argued strongly that the Petraeus plan is working and we must not withdraw. Even such non-friends of the U.S. military as U.N. Secretary-General Ban have voiced concern about the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

None of this deters the Democrats, of course, who won't let the possibility of a million dead Iraqis stand in the way of an opportunity to damage the Bush Administration and enhance their 2008 election prospects.

The Dems can count on some of the Republican jellyfish in the Senate, who also have their eyes on 2008, to look at the (media-manipulated) polling data on the war and cave. Stupid Republicans. Opposition to the war is about an inch deep, and will turn around fairly quickly if the Petraeus plan is reasonably successful. The pro-victory base of the party, however, will never forget the cowardice of the weak-kneed wafflers. They can expect primary challenges and fund-raising troubles.

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

Snatching defeat

Posted by Richard on July 11, 2007

After countless mistakes and still impeded by the most restrictive rules of engagement ever, coalition forces in Iraq seem to have turned the corner. The troop surge (which nearly doubled the number of combat troops in the field) and Petraeus plan are beginning to work. Shia tribal leaders are turning away from al Sadr, Sunni tribal leaders are fighting al Qaeda, and the Iraqi security forces are more and more in control and trusted.

The situation in Anbar province has improved greatly in the past couple of months, and al Qaeda is on the run in Diyalah, with villagers calling on the Iraqi Army for help in battling the barbarians. They're treating us as liberators in and around Baquba — and if you've been reading Michael Yon's dispatches, you know why.

Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two man and chief strategist, in a video released on July 4 (Belmont Club has a detailed summary; Power Line has the video), made it clear that they're in trouble in Iraq, are losing the support they had among the Sunni population, and are desperate for reinforcements. 

Zawahiri's plea for help in preventing a U.S. victory in Iraq was immediately answered — by the mainstream media and Democrats. With al Qaeda weakening every day and coalition forces making progress in the most embattled regions of Iraq, the Americans who are completely invested in U.S. defeat and humiliation have themselves become desperate. We can't wait until next spring, they cry, or even for Gen. Petraeus' interim report this fall, we have to surrender and withdraw right now! The New York Times demanded that we leave "without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit," even while acknowledging that the result would be more bloodshed and chaos, possibly genocide, and the emergence of a new terrorist stronghold. 

The Democrat cheerleading for defeat is disgusting, but expected. What's new and truly contemptible is the sight of Senate Republicans sticking their finger in the wind and running for cover. LTC Ralph Peters outlined the sorry situation we're in (emphasis added):

EVEN as our troops make serious progress against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and other extremists, Congress – including Republican members – is sending the terrorists a message: "Don't lose heart, we'll save you!"

Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is suffering a humiliating defeat, as fellow Sunni Muslims turn against the fanatics and help them find the martyrdom they advertise. Yet for purely political reasons – next year's elections – cowards on Capitol Hill are spurning the courage of our troops on the ground.

The frantic political gamesmanship in Congress would nauseate a ghoul. Pols desperate for any cover and concealment they can get have dragged the Iraq Study Group plan from the grave.

Masterminded by former Secretary of State Jim "Have Your Hugged Your Saudi Prince Today?" Baker, the report is a blueprint for a return to yesteryear's dictator-smooching policy (which helped create al Qaeda – thanks, Jimbo!).

That Baker report reminds me of cheap horror films where the zombies just keep coming back – except that zombies retain a measure of integrity.

But if Republicans are rushing to desert our troops and spit on the graves of heroes, the Democratic Party at least has been consistent – they've supported our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.

So I'll tell you what happens: massacres. And while I have nothing against Shia militiamen and Sunni insurgents killing each other 24/7, the overwhelming number of victims will be innocent women, children and the elderly.

… As for those on the left who sanctimoniously set out rows of shabby combat boots to "teach" the rest of us the cost of war, I fully expect them to put out displays of women's slippers and children's shoes to show the world how many innocents died when they "brought our troops home now."

I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq.

This has been the Bush-Cheney War. But it will only be fair to call the carnage after we run away the "Reid-Pelosi Massacres."

Of course, many Americans will pay scant attention to the bloody consequences in Iraq. The advocates of surrender will surely avert their eyes from the resulting mass graves and deny any responsibility, just as their counterparts from an earlier generation did regarding the killing fields of Cambodia and the mass graves, prison camps, and boat people of Vietnam. 

Besides, the escalation of attacks on the West by a reinvigorated al Qaeda may distract us. As Armed Liberal noted, if we abandon Iraq to the Islamofascists: 

We will have helped train a new generation of jihadis to believe that if they kill several thousand troops, we will surrender. The last time we taught them this lesson was in Somalia, which in Bin Laden's words

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

I can't wait to see what he says – and more importantly, does – in response to our pullout from Iraq.

 

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

Democrats declare another failure

Posted by Richard on June 16, 2007

The other day, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi declared the Iraq "surge" a failure even before the troop buildup was complete. Harvey at IMAO came up with the perfect response — a classic IMAO parody entitled "America's Corn Crop a 'Failure', Top Democrats Tell Bush":

WASHINGTON (AP) – Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that American farmers' spring planting "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over this year's corn crop by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen [sic], the springtime planting of seed corn has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in seeds in the ground has yet to produce a single edible ear of corn so far this year.

"Far from fulfilling its promise of putting steaming, buttery ears on every table, this crazy planting scheme has done nothing so far but cost this country's farmers most of last year's profits, as well as causing them to spend all their time coddling these high-maintenance vegetables.

"Clearing the land, plowing, weeding, fertilizing, irrigating, spreading pesticides and herbicides – not to mention the over 1000 farmers that have lost their lives in unnecessary tractor deaths so far this year – when will the madness end?

"And what do we have to show for it? It's already mid-June and not a single plant has borne fruit. In fact, if these trends continue, it's safe to predict a nation-wide corn famine that will bring this country to its knees."

Read the whole thing, including comments. I especially liked "The field was happier before it was plowed!" 

On a more serious note: Reid and Pelosi aren't the only Democrats who have something to say about the situation in Iraq. Sen. Joe Lieberman actually went to Iraq to assess the situation in Iraq, and I strongly encourage you to read his analysis.

 

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

Pelosi celebrates Flag Day

Posted by Richard on June 14, 2007

The buildup of 30,000 additional combat troops in Iraq known as the "surge" will be complete tomorrow, and the military said last week that "it could take up to two months for the newly arrived reinforcements to be fully effective." There are certainly signs of improvement, but it would be premature to declare the surge a success.

For the Democrats, however, it's never too early to declare it a failure, and that's just what Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi did yesterday. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this is how Nancy Pelosi celebrated Flag Day today: 

Pelosi waves white flag

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Iraq and Darfur

Posted by Richard on May 23, 2007

Former Democratic Senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey took his fellow liberals to task in The Wall Street Journal today. Kerrey made two points: first, that Iraq "is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism"; and second, that the Democratic critics of our Iraq policy are at least inconsistent, if not downright hypocritical:

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

… 

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

As if on cue, Senator Joe Biden today renewed his call for the United States to invade Sudan. Biden's call for the United States to "cowboy up" and use military force unilaterally was denounced by the Sudanese ambassador to the U.N., thus deepening the irony: Biden opposes having U.S. troops in a country whose democratically-elected government wants us there (Iraq), but he's eager to "redeploy" those troops into Sudan over the strenuous objections of its (admittedly undemocratic) government.

I believe I can clear up the mystery for Bob Kerrey and anyone else who is puzzled by the inconsistency of Biden, most Democrats, and most of the American left in general. Unlike, say, Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan, these people aren't opposed in principle to military intervention in foreign countries. They're only opposed to military intervention that might possibly be in America's self-interest.

And of course, they can't abide anything supported by Chimpy McHalliburton Bushitler.

UPDATE: Bob Krumm, commenting on Sen. Kerrey's article, suggested that if the Democrats had nominated Kerrey instead of Kerry in 2004, they might control the White House today. I suspect he's right. He has some other interesting observations, so check it out.

Later, Krumm sarcastically explained the lack of media coverage Kerrey's gotten:

Have you noticed that whenever a Republican of some national prominence says anything negative about America's Iraq policy, that it's greeted with rapt media attention? (Think Chuck Hagel)

This morning, however, former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey says that the war in Iraq is central to the war against Islamic terrorism, and the media apparently responds with deafening silence.

Instead of jumping to the conclusion that the differing treatments are indicative of media bias, might it be dog bites man? Perhaps the existence of pro-war Democrats is more common than anti-war Republicans, and that's why it's not news.

That must be it, Bob. After all, it can't be media bias — all the big media journalists have assured us that they're objective reporters with no political biases whatsoever.

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