This email follows the email I just posted about from Dave Thul in Al Asad Iraq concerning Appeal from Courage formally presenting their Appeal for Redress in support of our mission in Iraq, to members of Congress today.
I am starting with words from the frontline by a man who used to think we should cut and run like hell, until he got there. From the Buzz Blog, hat tip to Take Our Country Back via the Victory Caucus Forums.
A friend of mine sent this to me. It’s from his brother Major Michael Rountree, M.D. who is currently stationed in Ramadi, Iraq. Oh by the way, Major Rountree voted for Al Gore in 2000.
“Back from seeing patients- thought you might be interested in my war thoughts-
This war IS winnable irrelevant of what the ridiculous media say. I have not met one person here who thought otherwise, though I’ve met a lot disgruntled people because it is all on us in the Army. This war is more like fighting crime in New York- you don’t wake up one day and say “hey- its over!’. You gradually reduce the numbers to a livable level. We are fighting criminals here, not soldiers.
When I volunteered I came to treat Americans in what I thought would be similar to the last days of Vietnam. But since living here 4 months, I have completely changed my mind. I dont believe we should pull out, and I don’t think we need to. We can win, and will, given time and enough men to act as police do in the cities.
Anyway- thought youd be interested in a surprising opinion from the front lines, one I never expected to have. Tell anyone who claims differently that they are just plain wrong.
Mike
Also in todays news, directly related to these words of our frontline military members, and Congress and the Senate's complete indiference to our military's words, we have yet another bill being proposed by Congress that will be vetoed, they know this, as they did with the last bill and yet they proceed to waste the time and the money, once again.
MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, Kan., May 9 -- President Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday morning.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Snow said of the bill: "There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill."
Hat Tip to Capatin's Quarters for bringing us Robert Gates, Baghdad Reid's, Carl Levin's and Steny Hoyer's previous words against this new bill that is being proposed.
Gates:
And Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee that such short-term funding would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just doesn't "have the agility to manage a two month appropriation."
Gates also told the Senate Defense Appropriations panel that if the military begins to see progress in Iraq later this fall, including political reconciliation within the Iraqi government, the U.S. could begin withdrawing troops.
Baghdad Reid:
Asked if he would back a proposal floating around the House of Representatives to fund the war for just three months as a compromise to the war funding dispute, Reid said, "I personally don't support that."
Levin:
“I don’t think that’s the best approach,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) said Friday. “I think it’s too close to the end of the fiscal year for that.”
Senate Democratic aides also downplayed the chances that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would agree to try to pass short-term funding bills for the war, noting that it likely would tie the Senate floor in knots and prevent Reid from bringing up other Democratic legislative priorities...
Hoyer:
Many senators, as well as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), say they’re not inclined to support a two-month supplemental.
“There are a lot of ideas being discussed, and Mr. Hoyer personally feels that at this time he doesn't see that particular option moving forward,” said Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Farnen Bernards.
These political games being played by Congress and the Senate are seriously hindering our efforts and it is clear to anyone watching, here or abroad that the Democrats and the far left are doing everything in their ability to lose this war on terror for America.
Captain Ed doesn't see this latest brainstorm gaining any traction:
I don't see this option gaining too much traction, not without these Democrats having to publicly reverse themselves within a few weeks of these statements. The sure way to look weak and vacillating is to start flip-flopping all over the place while our troops run out of money on the front lines, and they certainly can't afford to do that while making Bush look even stronger through another veto.
I am not sure the Democrats care much about flip flopping but he could be right, we will have to see.
In the meantime Pelosi, our Darling Damascus Diva is threatening to sue Bush:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.
Although later in the article it points out that this has been tied before with other presidents and has failed.
In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.
In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.
The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.” A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.
Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits.
Probably won't stop her from trying and honestly, I would love to see Pelosi laughed out of court for such an action, further showing the world that she is incompetent and foolish as well as ignorant of how these things work.
In yet another piece we find that Pelosi is also treading on thin ice with one of her beloved "earmarks" or "pork":
When Dennis Hastert was accused of profiting from congressional earmarks last year, media went into a front-page frenzy over "corruption." With Nancy Pelosi now in the same spot, it's a back-page story.
In case you haven't heard, and maybe you haven't, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. It's pork barrel spending, yes, but more than that.
Republicans are crying foul because the federal cash for port improvements and the bill's provision for Pier 35 cruise ship dockage all benefit a toney area of San Francisco — one where Pelosi's husband just happens to own real estate about a mile away.
His properties are close enough to benefit from the inflow of federal cash to the area — and from the added business the new development will bring. At the very least, the question should be raised because he definitely has friends in high places.
To be fair, Pelosi's earmark is going to a touristy area near Coit Tower, where plenty of San Francisco's movers and shakers could potentially benefit from the trough's offerings, too. Given the small size of San Francisco, maybe it's impossible to avoid conflicts.
But that's just it. When the last House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, made a $2 million profit from selling land almost six miles from a highway project he secured a $200 million earmark for in 2005, the outcry was loud about how he might have served himself.
The media ran front-page stories on it for days and television commentators harrumphed about public corruption — the GOP kind.
Now that Democrat Pelosi has secured an earmark for some land a mere 5,400 feet from her husband's property, there are no front-page stories. But there should be, because this isn't the first time she's been noticeably helpful to her own interests.
A few months ago, Pelosi wrote a provision into a minimum wage law that exempted American Samoa from its costs to businesses. The exemption benefited Starkist, whose Del Monte headquarters is in Pelosi's district. Like this pork issue, that story dropped from the news like a dead fish.
As far as we can tell, only the Associated Press and New York Post have reported the story, and local papers are asleep. Much of the media has tucked the lonely AP story onto their back pages for appearances' sake. But in practical terms, this story will drop from the pier fast and sink without notice.
Maybe Pelosi did something wrong and maybe she didn't. Were phone calls made from Union Street lobbyists, or were deals cut at The Palm? Is there something about the law that makes it impossible to follow? We don't know because the media aren't on it.
The one thing we do know is that the media shows one standard of coverage for charges made against Republicans and another standard for Democrats.
With Pelosi on the hot seat this time, this news probably will get deep-sixed. It shouldn't.
Media Bias at work here?
[Update] Other good news coming from Iraq:
Sheiks sign peace agreement[Update #2] The Good News From Iraq just got better, thanks to Bill Roggio:
TIKRIT — In an effort to end tribal conflicts that have been occurring for decades, the paramount sheiks from the Karki and Shimouri tribes signed a peace agreement at the home of the Mujema tribal leader in Diyala province, Monday.
Sheik Thaer Ghadban Ibrahim, Karki paramount sheik, and Sheik Ahmad Abdullah Hassooni, Shimouri paramount sheik, have been meeting for the past three months to work out grievances between tribes.
By signing the agreement, the tribes promised to “consolidate and unify to battle all insurgents that penetrate among [their] tribes.”
“The people have no confidence in the terrorists’ ways and ultimate goals for death and destruction,” said Col. David W. Sutherland, 3rd Brigade Combat Team commander and senior U.S. Army officer in Diyala. “This initiative and agreement by the tribes shows their commitment to their people, this country’s stability, and a positive vision for the future.”
Specifics of the agreement include freeing previous kidnapped victims and stopping all kidnapping and killing operations; stopping indirect-fire attacks; providing the Iraqi police any members of their tribes which may be linked to insurgent groups; supporting the Iraqi army and police against terrorists; and resolving farming issues among the tribes.
“We are all with you against the terrorists,” Ahmed said.
After signing the agreement, Thaer and Ahmad placed their hand on the Koran to signify their commitment to the peace agreement.
Within the upcoming months, more paramount sheiks are expected to meet and come to similar agreements toward peace.
The Anbar Salvation Council, the group of tribal leaders and former Sunni insurgents, continues to expand its base of support in the Sunni community both inside Anbar province, and beyond. Sam Dagher of the Christian Science Monitor reports on a major development in Anbar province. The Anbar Salvation Council, led by Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Rishawi, has turned the Albu Fahd tribe against al Qaeda. The Albu Fahd was one of the six original Anbari tribes to support al Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq. These six tribes are known in some military intelligence circles as the "Sinister Six". The Albu Fahd [described as the Bu-Fahed] has now joined the Anbar Salvation Council and pledged to throw its weight behind the fight against al Qaeda.
"Winning over the Bu-Fahed tribe was a coup," said Mr. Dagher, who covered the tribal meeting where the Albu Fahd moved into the camp of the Anbar Salvation Council. "It had been one of Al Qaeda's staunchest supporters, and traces its lineage to the birthplace of the puritan form of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism in the Saudi Arabian province of Najd. It formally threw its lot behind Sheikh Abdel-Sattar Abu Risha."
As of last September, the leadership of 25 of the 31 Anbari tribes were cooperating with the government under the aegis of the Anbar Salvation Council, while six folded under the black banner of al Qaeda in Iraq's Islamic State......
Read the rest!!!! Perhaps someone should hand deliver these reports to Pelosi and her merry band of surrenderers.
Tracked back by:
Islam's War Against Christianity In The Holy Land from The American Israeli Patriot...
.
