It has been said time after time around the blogosphere and Harvard University Researchers have done a study that shows, talk of retreat in defeat, cut and run or any name you want to give it, does, indeed, embolden the enemy.
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.
The study shows a direct correlation between public statements made as well as the medias focus on the negative and the rise in attacks.
The emboldenment perspective might be separated into two distinct sets of arguments about why the perception of low resolve in one period increases insurgent violence in a subsequent period. A “cost sensitivity” argument posits that signals undercutting the perception of U.S. resolve in Iraq are likely to produce greater levels of violence if insurgents perceive that increasing the costs of the U.S. presence will induce withdrawal - that is, if the United States appears to be responsive to the costs imposed by the insurgents in the form of higher attacks.
The study goes on to say that in the periods immediately after "anti-resolve" (cut and run) speeches are given, the level of insurgent attacks increases 7 to 10 percent.
These results suggest, first, that there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks in the short-term, and, second, that insurgent organizations - even those motivated by religious or ideological goals - are strategic actors.
The enemies watch the media, they watch the high level politicians and they listen to what is said publicly and they use it against us, which was shown, in the terrorists own words back in 2006.
Osama Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda Intends To Launch "A Media Campaign ... To Create A Wedge Between The American People And Their Government." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: This Media Campaign Will Stress "That [The American] Government Would Bring Them More Losses, In Finances And In Casualties." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: "[The American People] Are Being Sacrificed To Serve The Big Investors, Especially The Jews." (Letter From Osama Bin Laden To Mullah Omar, Released By The White House Press Office, 9/5/06)
Questioning strategies and and showing attention to what is going on is not the problem, the problem is the complete irresponsibility of people like Harry Reid with his famous "Iraq is lost" comment, or Nancy Pelosi when she continues her mantra of Iraq is a failure, even when we are seeing great success and progress from the Iraqis, or Hilary Clinton when she tells General Petreaus that she it takes a "winning suspension of disbelief" to believe what he says, which now has been proven true, yet she never apologized for her careless, reckless comments.
The examples go on and on... there is a difference between legitimate questions on strategy and deliberately emboldening the enemy and causing a higher level of attacks, especially when it is done as a political game for these politicians.
Like things haven't been tense enough in the Senate in the last few months, tense enough to bring it to a near standstill regarding getting anything passed at all, Harry "the mouth" Reid, once again has a temper tantrum and makes the statement "President Bush is the man that’s pulling the strings on the 49 puppets he has here.”
Today Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) wonders aloud if Reid is "up to the job" and accuses Reid of violating Senate Rules, specifically Rule 19, b-2 which states:
2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
Watching C-Span 2 day after day, I would have to say, that Reid violates that rule almost every time he stands up and whines.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who's been known to get fired up in his own right, says Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) violated Senate rules yesterday when Reid said President Bush "is the man that's pulling the strings on the 49 puppets he has here in the Senate." Bush was blaming Senate Republicans for blocking an alternative minimum tax (AMT) package that also included some tax increases.
In there lies the problem, the Democratic politicians have not met a bill they haven't tried to sneak tax increases into and they know by attaching those tax increases the Republicans in the Senate are going to insist on the 60 vote rule aka filibuster. Specter:
"I don't take it lightly and I don't think the other 48 of my colleagues take it lightly to be called 'puppets, "I really wonder if he [Reid] is up to the job when he resorts to that kind of statement which only furthers the level of rancor and animosity with that kind of insulting comment."
“It is my view that being called a puppet is in direct violation of that rule,” Specter said. “I don’t think there’s much doubt about it. That is a term of derision. That is a term of ridicule.”
In the meantime, if Reid thinks statements like that are going to lessen the tension and create a better atmosphere to find bipartisan solutions... he has another thing coming and Specter is right, Reid isn't up to the job of Senate Majority leader.
Reid makes these types of statements every time he doesn't get his way, he throws a temper tantrum (Click link, watch video of Reid admitting to one of his "little tantrums when he doesn't get his way"- and apologizing for it--Immigration issue), yanks bills, whines and basically acts like a two year old that cannot get his way.
Text of his admitting it:
REID: Mr. President, let me just say I'll just take a minute and the Senator from Texas can speak. I told the Senator from South Carolina that I was going to be making a unanimous consent request. I say to my friend from Texas what a difference a night makes.
As you know — as some know, not very many, Senator Cornyn and I, Senator Graham and a few others, we were trying to work something out on this border security and Senator Cornyn and I were the last two to speak on this issue.
And like a lot of things around here, if you don't get your way, you kind of throw a tantrum a lot of times, and I didn't get my way, so I thought I would throw just a little tantrum. And the evening has brought to my attention that I was wrong, and Senator Cornyn was right.
Is that really the way we expect the Senate Majority leader to act? Like a 2 yr old?
The back and forth illustrates the tension now growing on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers who were hoping to leave Washington well in advance of Christmas remained deadlocked on the AMT, Iraq war funding and appropriations.
The appropriations bills still outstanding could be rolled into a single omnibus bill, or Congress could keep funding government with another continuing resolution. The Pentagon says it has enough money to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going until March.
But the AMT will ensnare some 25 million taxpayers next April if Congress doesn’t act. And the Internal Revenue Service has warned that failure to address it now could delay the processing of tax returns, and the mailing of refund checks.
Both sides want to fix the AMT, which was never intended for the middle class families who now fall within its limits. But congressional Democrats want to replace the lost revenue with tax increases in other areas, while President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate oppose any tax increase.
[...]
Specter says the inability of the sides to come to an agreement doesn’t make GOP senators puppets. He listed issues on which they have defied the White House: embryonic stem cell research, the Water Resources Development Act, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill.
“When the majority leader makes a proposal and asks for Republican assistance, many of us have been willing to listen to what he has to say,” Specter said. “But he doesn’t improve his case when he starts calling us puppets.
“I really wonder if he’s up to the job.”
Note to Reid: The rules are there to be used and the filibuster rule is there to stop morons like you from steamrolling things that we don't want... higher taxes being one of them.
The Republicans are using the rules of Senate to do what their constituents want and if you don't like that or cannot handle that like an adult, then step down and let someone that understands what working in a bipartisan manner entails, step up, so something can actually get accomplished.
[Update below--Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash, admits to the Democrats hypocrisy]
The New Hampshire Union Leader has a joint piece out today written by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman:
HAVING SPENT much of the past year mired in legislative trench warfare over Iraq, advocates in Congress seeking a mandatory withdrawal of troops are now refusing to pass funding for our forces deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
For Congress to fail to provide the funds needed by our soldiers in the field is inexcusable under any circumstances -- but it is especially disappointing right now, coming at the very moment when Gen. David Petraeus and his troops are achieving the kind of progress in Iraq that few would have dared imagine possible just a few months ago.
We recently traveled to Iraq, where we saw and heard firsthand about the remarkable transformation that our brave men and women in uniform have succeeded in bringing about this year.
As every major news outlet now acknowledges, security has improved dramatically across Iraq since Gen. Petraeus took command and began implementing a bold new counterinsurgency strategy -- the so-called "surge." Today, rocket and mortar attacks have dropped to their lowest levels in 21 months. Car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have plummeted 70 percent. Iraqi civilian casualties are sharply down throughout Iraq. And the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level in nearly two years.
Simply put: a year ago, al-Qaida was winning in Iraq. Now we are.
Our soldiers know they have seized the momentum in this fight.
Idealistic and innovative, they rightly recognize what has happened this year under Gen. Petraeus as one of the most extraordinary turnarounds in American military history.
As a result of the hard-won gains our troops have secured, Gen. Petraeus has been able to initiate a drawdown of U.S. forces. The first 5,000 American troops are now on their way out of Iraq, with more likely to follow in the months ahead. However, we should not have an automatic timetable for withdrawing brigades. Gen. Petraeus should decide the size of the force he needs to maintain security and keep our enemies on the run.
The success that Gen. Petraeus and his troops have achieved could provide the foundation for a new bipartisan consensus about Iraq in Washington. All of us, after all, want our troops to succeed in Iraq so that they can begin to come home with honor.
Unfortunately, too many Democrats have thus far been reluctant to welcome the reality of progress -- instead searching for ways to deny or disparage it.
In particular, Democrats have seized on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi government to insist that we should abandon Gen. Petraeus' successful strategy and withdraw far more of our troops, far faster, than he recommends.
This would be a terrible mistake.
There is no question Iraq's national leaders must do more to promote reconciliation and improve governance in the months ahead.
But the fact is, there has been enormous political progress in Iraq at the local and provincial levels thanks to the surge, as Sunni and Shiite leaders have stepped forward to fight against the extremists in their communities.
Building on these gains is going to require deft diplomacy and subtle statecraft from the United States -- not declarations of defeat.
And whatever the failings of the imperfect, fledgling democracy in Baghdad, they do not justify abandoning it to the al-Qaida fanatics and Iranian-backed terrorists who are trying to destroy it.
And make no mistake. Despite the progress we have achieved this year, there is no cause for complacency. Just as we have managed to turn failure into success in 2007, we can likewise turn success back into failure in 2008, if we are not careful.
As Brig. Gen. Joe Fil, the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, recently put it, al-Qaida in Iraq is now off balance, but they will come swinging back at us, if we give them the chance.
That is why Congress' failure to fund our troops is so profoundly reckless.
Nine months ago, when Gen. Petraeus took command in Baghdad, people of good conscience could disagree about whether his new counterinsurgency strategy would succeed. After so many mistakes and missteps by the Bush administration in Iraq, many Americans were understandably skeptical about the possibility of success.
Now, however, the evidence is unequivocal. The surge is working.
Rather than holding hostage the funding for our troops in the field and writing off the hard-won gains they are secured, it is time for Democrats and Republicans alike to recognize the extraordinary progress that Gen. Petraeus' strategy has achieved -- and build a new political consensus around it.
Just as we demand Iraqi leaders take advantage of the success of the surge to set aside their sectarian agendas and pursue peace, so too it is time for Congress to stop playing senseless partisan games and instead fund our troops -- who have accomplished so much -- without delay. They deserve nothing less.
(Emphasis mine)
With the last few months of good news coming out of Iraq, and more in the last weeks, these statements high light the irresponsibility of Congress, Pelosi and Reid in trying to appease their far left base instead of acknowledging reality.
Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a "failure," but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.
The Senate re-opened for business on Monday after a two-week Thanksgiving break, during which key Democrats traveled to Iraq and declared that the surge is working, at least from a security and military perspective. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that "the surge is working," even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha's view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq.
But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.
The ramifications of their incompetence, by not funding our troops are well known and published,so they are in a position where they either support the troops or they don't.
There is no middle ground left for them anymore and this is a problem of their own making by being so invested in defeat that success has become a major political problem for them.
I have been stating for a year that Lieberman might end up on a Republican ticket as VP and McCain, if successful might be the guy to offer him that position.
Don't get me wrong, many of Lieberman's stances on social issues are simply unacceptable to me, but when prioritizing, National Security trumps almost everything else and as VP, I believe Lieberman and McCain are two strong allies regarding Americas safety.
Hot Air points us to a previous statement of Baghdad Reid's, made in April:
Maybe he should head to Iraq himself, perhaps if he doesn't believe the commanders on the ground, the troops or his own Democratic politicians, he might believe his own eyes.
Although, I doubt he would get a very warm welcome from our guys and gals over there.
Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash, who accompanied Mr. Murtha on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq, agreed both that the surge is working, and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn anyway. But he admitted there was hypocrisy in Democratic criticisms of the Iraqi government.
"I felt kind of embarrassed to tell the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here," Rep. Dicks told the Seattle Times.
OUCH.
I think I have made that point a few dozen times in a quite a number of posts!
OPEN TRACKBACKS (Just link to this post and send a ping)
Finally the Democrats are being honest enough to let the American people and our troops know they do not support them.
"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field," Fratto said. "I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn't like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding."
He said the president sent his budget to Congress back in February last year. Along with that was the supplemental request for more than $145 billion for the global war on terror. The request last month was an augmentation to that request, but they've known that funding is needed, Fratto said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.
Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
As a result, he said, he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.
I much rather the Democratic politicians do it this way, because it takes the illusion they have been trying to dupe the public with, away, and shines a light right on the fact that they are weak on defense and that they do not now, nor have they, really supported the troops in the field.
That’s 100,000 voters by the way, and their families who will be affected by the Democrat’s playing politics with American’s lives.. How do you think that will turn out in the election?
The campaign ads are already being worked on.
That 100,000 number, mentioned by Macsmind, is just those affected and then total in their families, but in relation to the amount of bad will this will present to all Democrats voting not to send our troops what they need in the field and making life harder and more dangerous for them, we look to another group that represents 2.7 million more veterans and their families that the Democrats have just clearly alienated.
The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and patriotic youth programs. The Legion’s 2.7 million wartime veterans work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation. American Legion: Pass Iraq Funding Without Politics
The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization called on Congress to pass another Iraq funding bill without the political provisions passed by the House yesterday.
The House of Representatives passed a $50 billion Iraq war-funding bill that would require the president to start bringing home troops within 30 days and bar certain interrogation techniques. The bill passed 218-203.
“The White House has already said it would veto the bill, so Congress needs to get on with the business of funding our troops without playing political ‘Gotcha,’” said National Commander Marty Conatser. “I have been to Iraq, visited the troops and met with Gen. Petraeus. They are doing an outstanding job and making great progress in rooting out terrorism. Congress authorized the mission, now it needs to continue to fund it.”
Conatser pointed out that The American Legion unanimously re-affirmed Resolution 169 at its last national convention. “Resolution 169 reminds people that supporting the troops means supporting their mission. You don’t support the troops by denying the funds they need to do their job. Like the resolution states, ‘the global war on terrorism is a just war, aimed at protecting the very foundations of freedom-loving people everywhere.’”
“Unfortunately, this war is still very much in progress. If certain people in the legislative branch are bound and determined to lose it, I’m sure they’ll be able to, but it won’t be lost by us,” Army Sergeant 1st Class Jack Robison recently told The American Legion from Anbar Province. “While they point fingers and manipulate public opinion in our name, we are doing what we came here to do: fight and win.”
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send President Bush a bill this year.
Simply put, the Democrats have just cut their own throat, politically speaking. Unless of course they feel they didn't need the few million extra votes that they have just thrown out the window.
[Update] Statement from Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen:
SEC. GATES: Good afternoon. I have a statement, and copies of it will be available after the -- after the press briefing.
Yesterday Secretary Rice and I, General Cartwright and Deputy Treasury Secretary Kimmitt met with members of Congress to discuss ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We reviewed the real security gains being made in Iraq as well as the political and economic situation.
I also strongly urged the Congress to pass a global war on terror funding bill that the president would sign. With the passage of the Defense Appropriations Act, there is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception.
The fact is, the department has significantly less funding flexibility than it had last spring. In the fall of 2006, Congress provided us with a bridge fund of $70 billion until passage of the full war supplemental. The full supplemental did not pass Congress until late May.
This fall, the department has been operating under a continuing resolution. Now that the regular appropriations bill has been enacted, we are left with no bridge fund and only our base budget to support normal war operations. Further, Congress has provided very limited flexibility to deal with this funding shortage. We can only move a total of $3.7 billion under general transfer authority, which only amounts to a little over one week's worth of war expenses.
All this leaves the department only with undesirable options to continue operations in the absence of a bridge fund. The path we believe is least undesirable fiscally and militarily would involve the following. The military would cease operations at all Army bases by mid-February next year. This would result in the furloughing of about 100,000 government employees and a like number of contractor employees at Army bases.
These layoffs would have a cascading effect on depots and procurements. Similar actions would follow for the Marine Corps about a month later. By law, we're required to notify certain union employees 60 days in advance, so appropriate notices would have to go out starting in mid-December.
If the Congress does not provide bridge funding this week on a bill that the president will sign, and given the uncertainty of future action in December, by the end of this week, as a prudent manager, I will be obliged to take a series of anticipatory steps. First, submit an urgent reprogramming request to the Congress. And second, direct the Army and Marine Corps to develop a plan to furlough employees, terminate contracts and prepare bases for reduced operations.
These plans would begin to be implemented in mid-December. It is a fact of life that even if we received a $50 billion bridge now, and the president signs it, it will fund war operations only through about the end of February. And so we would be back in this situation immediately after the Congress reconvenes in late January.
A final point, I make these comments solely as the person charged by the president and the Congress with administering the Department of Defense. The high degree of uncertainty on funding for the war is immensely complicating this task and will have many real consequences for this department and for our men and women in uniform.
Admiral?
ADM. MULLEN: Good afternoon. I just returned from Brussels, which was a -- I attended my first NATO military committee meeting in this job. We discussed a significant amount of -- spent a significant amount of time on Afghanistan and the mission there, which support for it remains very strong, and we also discussed the challenges in that mission and didn't come away with all the answers to manning, resourcing and caveats, but we had some very frank discussions, which I consider to be positive.
It's also important to note the other vital missions that the NATO alliance performs both in and outside the long war. Very active in a mission called Active Endeavor and have been for several years, which has become more and more effective; the training mission in Iraq and also operations in the Balkans. We also elected the next chairman of the military committee, Admiral Di Paola of Italy, and I'd like to just extend my congratulations to him. He's a superb leader, and I've known him for several years. And I'd like to extend my thanks and appreciation to General Ray Henault from Canada for his service and leadership as current chairman.
I'd like to switch and just spend a minute on Pakistan. I know there's been lots of discussion about the security of the nuclear weapons. I'd like to be very clear. I don't see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful as we should be.
As far as operations are concerned, our military-to-military contacts and dialogue between leaders continue, and I see no disruption of that as a result of the emergency measures in place. I've also not seen and do not anticipate any interruption of the logistics through Pakistan at this point, and certainly, we are spending time watching each one of these areas, but I just wanted to bring you up to speed.
So no major changes to our military relationship with Pakistan, watching it very carefully. We'd certainly like to see the emergency measures end as soon as possible, but I believe militarily the situation is stable.
And then, lastly, I'd just like to follow up on what the secretary said in terms of executing the budget inside the current constraints.
As a former service chief and in a position to have to deal with these uncertainties and -- the secretary pointed out -- anticipatory things that leaders and managers have to do, without the kind of bridge support that's being requested, services start reacting very, very quickly inside the services, anticipating even the anticipatory measures that the secretary spoke of. And it just -- from a management standpoint and actually from an expense standpoint, you do start to draw in very quickly. And your ability to execute a budget is much less effective and much less efficient. Thank you.
Michael Yon does it again. He captures in pictures and in words the mood of Baghdad. It isn't the Baghdad under a brutal dictator. It isn't the Baghdad that was suffering last year with violence.
It is a new Baghdad and the Muslims in Baghdad are telling their Christian friends and neighbors that it is time to come home.
(Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”)
Michael Yon:
I can’t remember my last shootout: it’s been months. The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it’s time to come home. And the Christians are saying it’s time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.
Go to Yon's site and see the whole wonderful piece, the pictures tell a story of a country rebuilding and what I have shown you here is but a small fraction of what he has there.
Moving along here to what is left of al-Qaeda and the Strategy Page shows us that they are more worried about surviving now than they are about those "spectacular" attacks that get blasted across the news to make Americans think they are winning in Iraq:
As the surge offensive continued to tear apart the terrorist infrastructure, the leaders put the organization into survival mode. Planning and carrying out attacks became less important than keeping remaining leaders and key people out of jail, or a grave. This is why the number of terror attacks has plummeted. The remnants of al Qaeda have fled to northern Iraq, around Mosul and areas near the Iranian border. If worse comes to worse, the terrorists know they can flee into Iran, and have a chance of bargaining their way out of an Iranian jail. Within Iraq, however, capture is either a long jail sentence, or execution. Al Qaeda is the most hated organization in the country, and may have to abandon Iraq altogether if the pressure doesn't ease up.
[...]
If al Qaeda cannot go dark and rebuild, they will have to abandon Iraq. That is almost unthinkable, because al Qaeda has, since 2003, declared Iraq to be "the graveyard of the Crusaders." To admit defeat in Iraq would be a tremendous blow to al Qaeda operations elsewhere. The organization is already weakened by the failure to carry out any more operations in the United States since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has been shut down in so many other areas as well. But it looks like Iraq may be the last stand, and the last straw.
Note to al-Qaeda in Iraq: Rot in hell you bastards, despite the past 40 attempts, and yesterdays 41st attempt, from the Democrats in our country to hand you a victory in Iraq, you have failed, they have failed and the Iraqi people have won and want no more to do with you.
As news such as this finally gets reported to the American people, support is rising and after 6 months the number of people that believe the war is going "very" or "fairly" well has risen to 44%, according to Politico which quotes the newest Pew figures.
That said, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well, a high point in the past year, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group.
At the same time, CBS News polling has found U.S. opposition to Bush’s troop surge softening a bit.
As for the Democrats (Pelosi, Reid and Company) that would like to abandon those Iraqi's shown above and all that are not shown, abandon them when things are going undeniably well, you can go to hell too and take your defeatist friends with you.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
ummmmmmmmmm, as we showed you earlier, via Weekly Standard and Roll Call:
Having quietly ensured last week that troops in Iraq will continue to be funded for at least the next few months, House and Senate Democrats feel free to use their final week before Thanksgiving to try yet again to attach a withdrawal timetable to any specific war funding.
By giving President Bush a $460 billion Defense spending bill that allows him to divert funding from regular Pentagon accounts to fund the war, Democrats believe they’ve insulated themselves from accusations that they are withholding money from soldiers “in harm’s way,” without having to explicitly vote for a “blank check...”
Indeed, the latest Democratic war funding strategy appears to be one in which they provide funding for the war through back channels like the Defense bill, but withhold explicit funding until the White House caves to their demands...
It’s a risky strategy that may only last until the Defense Department comes begging for more money after reallocating the $460 billion they’ve been given. Unless a critical mass of Republicans develops a sudden willingness to defy the president, funding bills attached to withdrawal timetables won’t become law.
The games the Democratic politicians play... silly, really.
Even the AP understands:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.
The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.
The ramifications of the Democrats little games:
In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.
England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.
So, they will pass a bill that cannot make it though the Senate, even if it did, it would be vetoed and they once again already admit they do not have the votes to override the veto.
So, while our soldiers wait, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will play political games with their funds, trying to force withdrawal while things are looking so promising in Iraq, that they couldn't even force when things were going badly in Iraq.
Pelosi understands that progress in Iraq is bad news for the party of defeat that have bet everything on America's failure and she is doing nothing more trying to rip the rug from under our troops feet for no other reason that they are doing the unthinkable in her eyes... they are winning.
The Definition of insanity is when you do the same thing, over and over and over and over again and expect a different result.
Lieberman Responds to Majority Leader Reid's and Speaker Pelosi's Effort to Force Troop Withdrawal
"Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure."
Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) issued the following statement today in response to the latest congressional effort to legislate a U.S. retreat from Iraq:
"Over the past nine months, American forces have begun to achieve the kind of progress in Iraq that, until recently, few in Washington would have dared to imagine might be possible.
"Working together with our increasingly capable Iraqi allies, U.S. troops under the command of General David Petraeus have routed al Qaeda in Iraq from its safe havens in Anbar province and Baghdad -- delivering what could well prove to be the most significant defeat for Osama bin Laden's terrorist network since it was driven from Afghanistan in late 2001.
"As al Qaeda has been beaten into retreat in Iraq, security conditions across the country have begun to improve. Iraqi civilian casualties are dramatically down. IED attacks have plummeted, while mortar and rocket attacks are at an unprecedented twenty-one month low. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level in nearly two years. And as a result, U.S. commanders on the ground have begun a drawdown in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.
"According to the BBC just this weekend: 'All across Baghdad... streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business. People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes. Everybody agrees that things are much better.'
"Unfortunately, congressional opponents of the war have responded to the growing evidence of progress in Iraq not with gratitude or relief, but with unrelenting opposition to a policy that is now clearly working.
"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, anti-war advocates in Congress have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat in Iraq -- reluctant to acknowledge the reality of progress there.
"Rather than supporting General Petraeus and our troops in the field, anti-war advocates in Congress are instead struggling to deny or disparage their achievements -- and are now acting, once again, to hold hostage the funding our troops desperately need and to order a retreat by a date certain and regardless of what is happening on the ground.
"It bears emphasizing that none of the progress we see today in Iraq would have happened, had these same anti-war activists prevailed in their earlier attempts this year to derail General Petraeus' strategy.
"In fact, throughout the past nine months, anti-war advocates in Congress have confidently and repeatedly predicted that General Petraeus' strategy would fail, and that the war in Iraq was 'lost.'
"It is now clear they were wrong.
"Rather than another ill-advised, misguided attempt to cut off the funding for our troops in the field, it is time for anti-war forces to admit that the surge is working and stop their futile legislative harassments.
"It is deeply irresponsible for anti-war forces in Congress to hold hostage the funds that our men and women in uniform need to continue their successful efforts. Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure."
You tell em Joe!!!!!
They just keep hoping that our troops will stop succeeding. Isn't a sad state of affairs when our own politicians are actively betting and hoping for our troops to lose?
Pathetic.
[Update] Our Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans are asking us for a little help, phone numbers are provided with their message, at this link]
Our military doesn't ask us to do much, please considering helping them with a few minutes of your time.
Democrats controlling the House of Representatives will try again to bring American combat in Iraq to an end when it debates legislation this week tying new war funds to troop withdrawals, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.
The legislation, similar to a bill President George W. Bush vetoed earlier this year, "gives voice to the concerns of the American people" over a war that is now in its fifth year and "with no light at the end of the tunnel," Pelosi, a California Democrat, said.
As early as Friday, the House will debate the plan that would give Bush only $50 billion of the $196 billion in new funds he has asked for to continue fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the money would go to Iraq.
The House repeatedly this year has passed legislation aimed at ending the Iraq war, only to see it die in the Senate or killed by Bush.
Like the emergency supplemental this will make it through Congress and be killed in the senate or vetoed and then it will go back and be passed without the troop withdrawal language.
Deja vu? Or just a congress that will play that game, with our troops lives, so they can claim, to their far left extreme faction of their party, "we tried" but we failed.
They tried it in March-May, they tried it in July and both times they failed miserably and got embarrassed publicly.
George Bush vetoed the surrender bill today with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, killed in Anbar May 8, 2005. Robert Derga wanted him to use the pen to sign that bill, and called to make sure he was going to do it.
So, you see what I mean when I say, we have been here before and the Democratically controlled Senate and Congress have learned nothing because they are going to repeat the same thing over again and we will see the same result again also.
Even the few Republican wobbling defections are not enough to obtain the TWO THIRD MAJORITY that is needed to override the next veto.
Obviously they do NOT learn by repetition and they also are having some simple math problems.
For the record Dems: 2+2=4 and it always will.
Once again, our soldiers wait while the Democratic politicians, like gerbils on the wheel, going round and round, knowing they will get nowhere, just to play political games with our troops funds.
Pollster.com has some interesting graphs showing the change from the decreasing support for our actions in Iraq and showing over the last 10 months an increase in support.
From 2004 to 2007 we saw a continuing decrease in support, a 3 year downward spiral that has not only stopped but in just months has started trending in a upward spiral.
While I've been doing back room work the last two months, some interesting changes have taken place in opinion about the war, the president, congress and the country. It is too early, and the changes too modest, to declare this a "turning point" in opinion, but the changes are consistent enough to take a hard look and ponder if there is still potential for significant shifts over the next 52 weeks until Election Day 2008.
The single most striking shift is the change in opinion about how the war in Iraq is going. After four and a half years of steady downward trends, there has been a reversal of direction since July.
CBS, CNN and Pew have asked "How well is the military effort in Iraq going?" since the war started (with some minor variation in wording. See the details here.) The virtue of this question is its consistent use over time and its summary evaluation of the war.
President Bush's change of policy in Iraq in January, coupling a change of command with a surge of troop levels did not produce immediately positive responses from the public. Likewise the rise in U.S. casualties in the spring following the change in deployment strategy certainly might have been expected to further erode support for the war and for Bush.
But in retrospect the actions have been accompanied by two phases of changing opinion on "how the war is going". From January through June, the long running collapse in positive evaluation of the war (especially in the second half of 2006) halted. The flattening now appears to have clearly coincided with the change in command and troop levels.
This flattening didn't signal rising opinion on the war-- but after dropping over 13 percentage points in six months, simply arresting the collapse was a major plus for the administration. And this is a particularly striking thing given that the spring of 2007 was a focal point for critiques of the war in Congress, with Democratic leadership repeatedly pushing votes that would have required changes in Iraq policy of various kinds. And this flattening came at the same time that casualties rose.
The second phase of opinion change started in early July, when positive evaluations of the war took their first upturn since late 2003 (around the time of the capture of Saddam Husein). The trend estimate has turned up some 8 percentage points since July 1, still not back to early 2006 levels, but remarkable this late in an unpopular war and with a weak leader and determined opposition.
It is also worth noting that this is not just a shift due to "undecided" citizens shifting. The percentage saying the war is going badly also stabilized through the spring and has turned down to about 58%, from a high of 69% at the end of 2006.
The American public are seeing what the Democratic politicians are trying their hardest to ignore.
Pelosi herself sidestepped the question when presented to her of whether she thought they had more support for demanding troop withdrawals.... she side stepped because she knows she doesn't, in fact, she has even less support now than the last time she tried this, but making the "attempt", knowing it will fail, is her pathetic way of trying to keep her far left, liberal base happy.
Pelosi sidestepped a reporter's question on whether congressional support for the idea has grown enough to overturn an inevitable veto by Bush.
The fact that she has the lowest approval ratings ever, in her own home state, and that Congress has the lowest approval ratings over all, seems to escape her notice.
The headlines tell us exactly how the Democratic leadership is being and will be portrayed in the MSM, in the weeks to come, or maybe for the years to come.
Those are just a few and make a good example. The Democrats are known as "failures" that stage "political stunts" while ignoring our Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
So, while our soldiers wait, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will play political games with their funds, trying to force withdrawal while things are looking so promising in Iraq, that they couldn't even force when things were going badly in Iraq.
Pelosi understands that progress in Iraq is bad news for the party of defeat that have bet everything on America's failure and she is doing nothing more trying to rip the rug from under our troops feet for no other reason that they are doing the unthinkable in her eyes... they are winning.
The Definition of insanity is when you do the same thing, over and over and over and over again and expect a different result.
Hat tip to Don Surber. Although Drudge points it out today, I saw this at Don Surber's blog last night.
Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the house, is where the responsibility to work in bipartisan manner, lays and she is incapable of doing so, despite her promises before and after the November eletions.
Time and again she has deliberately put bills forward that were not meant to garner the votes needed to pass by making sure it could pass the senate and not be vetoed or having the votes necessary to override a veto. She has deliberately shut out the Republicans from proposing amendments and has deliberately gone for the "all or nothing" side of things in a highly partisan manner.
The result?
Nothing is getting accomplished except for a record number of roll call votes in the house, which less that 10% of manages to reach the president's desk and get signed into law and the majority of those are naming postal offices and recreational parks.
The same applies to Harry Reid as the majority leader of the Senate. The people of Nevada have turned against him also, for the same reasons.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's appeal among Nevadans has plunged dramatically in a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll, which finds him viewed unfavorably by most likely voters in his home state.
Reid is still slightly more well-liked than Gov. Jim Gibbons. Both the Democratic senator and the Republican governor are less favorably viewed than President Bush.
In a closed-door meeting before the last vote on the children’s health care bill, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer appealed for the support of about 30 wavering Republican lawmakers. What he got instead was a tongue-lashing, participants said.
The GOP lawmakers, all of whom had expressed interest in a bipartisan deal on the SCHIP legislation, were furious that the Democratic leader from Maryland had not reached out to them in a more serious way early on. They also criticized him and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois for failing to stop his allies outside Congress from running attack ads in their districts, while they were discussing a bipartisan deal.
The result was a predictable one for this bitterly divided Congress. The House vote for a second SCHIP bill was a healthy majority, but not the two-thirds needed to override another veto vowed by President Bush. Only one Republican switched his vote — to oppose the measure.
Democrats accused Republicans of hurting kids. Republicans howled about a heavy-handed, uncompromising Democratic majority. And another chance at bipartisan consensus slipped away.
“They spent $1.5 million through their various shill outreach groups attacking me and a handful of my colleagues,” Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) said before the Hoyer meeting, “but they did not spend five minutes to approach me to ask for my vote.”
This us-against-them mentality has been an ongoing storyline of the new Democratic-controlled Congress. On the big items — Iraq, health care and spending — party leaders have shunned compromise.
Now for the part Don Surber showed us yesterday, before the Politico piece was published.
It looks like it is Pelosi that is about to become the "lame duck" speaker.
Debating Iraq all the time and trotting out 12-year-olds to push for a flawed doubling of SCHIP gets you 11% approval. Congressional Democrats won’t replace the first female speaker, but they may make her just a figurehead.
They may already have.
He points us to a compelling American Spectator piece showing why this is happening and that Pelosi is disconnected from reality.
Moderate Democrats in the House say that majority leader Rep. Steny Hoyer's decision to cut back the House work week by a day in 2008 is an indication that his influence is growing among Democrats to the diminishment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"She's all about image, and she fought this change to the death," says a moderate House member. "To our way of thinking, there was nothing for us to do on Friday, she had us wasting time when we could be home doing something, like campaigning and raising money. She didn't seem to understand that if we can't do either, she isn't going to have a majority next time."
[...]
Hoyer, who has long been considered a more powerful House member than Pelosi based on his fundraising prowess and Capitol Hill connections, has been hearing it from mostly moderate and conservative members, and even a few of Pelosi's supporters of late. "They feel like we're stuck in the mud and playing the Republicans' game," says a House leadership aide with ties to Hoyer. "Last week was a bad week for the House Speaker and she didn't seem to even know it."
Last week the House held its one-thousandth roll call vote this year, the first time Congress had reached that level since the ratification of the Constitution. Pelosi's office demanded that Democrats mark the event as a victory for the party, against the advice of Hoyer and other party leaders.
"It only served to highlight just how little we've actually achieved compared to what we promised," says the House aide. "Out of those thousand votes, about ten percent were bills that became law and half of those were namings of federal buildings and such. Fifty bills in a year doesn't compare to what we promised, and she wanted to put a spotlight on it. She just doesn't get it sometime."
Read the entire piece, it shows other areas where Nancy just "doesn't get it."
It means "enacting laws", which Pelosi and Reid and both houses cannot do because of their strong arm techniques that only manage to unite the Republicans against them and cause a war in Congress with the end result being nothing getting done.
The American people realize this, which is why Congress is so low in the polls and will continue to drop until the learn the definition of the word "legislate".
[Update] Great piece over at Weekly Standard showing us eacty how dysfunctional the new Congress has actually been.
[Update] These blazes are being attributed to Arson. The LA Times reports that there is an arson suspect in custody and another one was shot.
Amid worries of new blazes adding to the firestorm already afflicting the region, a man in Hesperia has been arrested on suspicion of arson, and police reported shooting and killing another arson suspect after chasing him out of scrub behind Cal State San Bernardino.
Law enforcement officials said today that they didn't know whether either of the men had started any of the more than a dozen large fires that have devastated Southern California in recent days, including the nearby Lake Arrowhead blaze. The brush fire in Hesperia was quickly extinguished by residents.
Investigators have said that at least two of the huge wildfires, one in Orange County and the other in Temecula, were the work of arsonists.
The confrontation that ended in the shooting death started about 6 p.m. Tuesday when San Bernardino university police spotted a man in a rural area of flood channels and scrub near the campus. University police tried to detain the man, but he got into his car and fled, authorities said. When he began to ram officers' vehicle, they shot him.
The suspect is described as a 27-year-old man with a home address in Arizona. Sheriff's investigators will search his impounded pickup truck pending a search warrant, Lt. Scott Patterson of the San Bernardino Police Department said this afternoon.
No additional information, including his identity will be released until Thursday.
I have heard conflicting news reports about the reward being offered for information on the arsonists, one report says it is $50,000 and another said $70,000. I see the $50,000 in more articles so I will stick with that figure.
Also in this update, Jammie Wearing Fool shows us that Bill Richardson is already using this tagedy for political purposes and as a campaign fundraising effort.
Michelle Malkin shows, via an email from Roy Blunt, us another politician, Nancy Pelosi, that is trying to take advantage of this tremendously horrible disaster for political purposes to take advantage of the fact that California politicians are busy helping their state and homes, so that she can sneak another SCHIP bill through while they are gone.
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today after House Democrats announced they plan to push through controversial SCHIP legislation tomorrow while a number of members from southern California are back in their districts responding to the wildfires:
“The scope, scale and severity of the fires raging in southern California are of a magnitude few of us have ever seen. What’s important right now is that members from the area be given the chance to return to their districts to aid their constituents in any way they can – whether through casework, disaster relief efforts, or simply lending a hand to a neighbor in need.
“Unfortunately, the speaker announced plans today to hold an important, and contentious, vote on SCHIP while these members are confronting serious issues at home – disenfranchising, in effect, a large segment of the most populous state in the union, and throwing into doubt the integrity of the vote.
“In light of these circumstances, I would urge the speaker to reconsider her strategy and delay the vote on her SCHIP bill until a time when the interests of millions of Americans in southern California can be accurately represented. Maybe in that time Democrats will also actually consider making a copy of the bill available to Republicans.”
Leave it to the Democrats to sink lower than slithering snakes by using this horrible tragedy for political gain.
Shame on them.
Original Post
We have been updating on the California wildfires, here and updated here, from the day they started.
Update on the fire first because it is the most important thing here:
Over a thousand homes, and rising, have been destroyed and firefighters are struggling with over a dozen fires in Southern California.
The fires have burned over 400,000 acres of land.
Around Lake Arrowhead the fire has consumed over 300 homes and threatens over 10,000 more according to state forestry officials and over a million people have been evacuated from their homes across Southern California and so far we are seeing reports of 5 deaths directly or indirectly related to the fire.
Officials are already estimating over one billion dollars worth of damage in San Diego alone.
The American Red Cross is sending 2,000 shelter workers and volunteers into the area to help with relief and recovery efforts. In addition, hundreds of “spontaneous” volunteers are arriving and being put to work. More than 75 mobile feeding vehicles have already been dispatched, along with thousands of comfort kits, blankets, and cots and more than 50,000 prepackaged meals.
Red Cross workers are also distributing water and food to firefighters and emergency workers in the affected areas. The Red Cross continues to work with its partners and local authorities to respond to the needs of those affected by the fires.
People affected by the wildfires are encouraged to register themselves on the Red Cross Safe and Well Website. Family members and friends can log on and search for registered individuals to learn of their whereabouts and status.
Please consider going to the Red Cross donation page and making a donation to help them help our neighbors in need.
On to the idiotic Harry Reid.
Harry "Baghdad" Reid once again sticks his big ole bozo the clown foot right into his mouth. (Hat Tip to Townhall:
After a closed door policy meeting with other Senate Democrats, Majority Leader and utter buffoon Hary Reid of Nevada took to the microphones just outside the floor of the United States Senate, and fielded questions.
In response to a question on the energy bill, Reid said the following:
As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.
Six questions later, a reporter followed up on Reid's amazing statement.
Question: Senator, on the California fires, you said that the reason the fires are burning in California is global warming?
Reid: No. Here's what I - I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming...
First, Reid is an idiot because tried to use global warming as a prop in a current news story in order to advance his energy bill agenda. When called on it, he denied he said it. It's on tape. You can listen to it here.
Read the rest of the Townhall piece.
Just another example of Harry opening his mouth and speaking about something he knows nothing about and to quote Dennis Miller, perhaps he should keep his "ashen piehole" shut, he won't prove how much of an idiot he is every time he opens it.
Following the line about this being said with NO due respect, the highlights of the video are when Miller calls Reid a "whiney hack", a "dim bulb", tells people that the "bad guys look to Reid", refers to his mouth as an "ashen piehole", tells Reid he "barely matters" and suggests to Reid that he "Never EVER speak out loud in public again".
Thats what you call a state that is not happy with their Senator.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's appeal among Nevadans has plunged dramatically in a new Review-Journal poll, which finds him viewed unfavorably by most likely voters in his home state.
Reid is still slightly more well-liked than Gov. Jim Gibbons. Both the Democratic senator and the Republican governor are less favorably viewed than President Bush.
Thats funny.
The Review-Journal last asked Nevadans their opinion of Reid in early May. At that time, he was seen favorably by 46 percent and unfavorably by 42 percent.
Even that was seen as alarming for Reid because his favorability did not top 50 percent and because the difference between the two numbers was only 4 percentage points. It continued a slide for Reid that coincides with his taking the Democratic leadership after his re-election in 2004, with 61 percent of the vote.
The new poll marks the first time the Review-Journal has measured Reid's unfavorable rating higher than his favorable number.
That is even funnier.
[Update] Rush Limbaugh is on that list also and he holds a higher approval rating than Reid also!!!!
Anti-war protesters barged into a speech Sen. John McCain was giving at the Capital Hilton this morning, but the interruption ended up giving McCain the high moment of his address to the National Rifle Association.
McCain was right in the middle of talking about the war in Iraq and how he and fellow Republicans are fighting to keep Democrats in Congress from forcing a change in strategy.
Suddenly, a young woman in a t-shirt reading "Troops Home Now" waded into the middle of the gun rights group, shouting "Bring the troops home!" and forcing McCain to stop speaking while she addressed the television cameras.
After a few seconds of camera time, a woman got up from her table at the NRA breakfast, wrapped the protester in an embrace and pushed her out of the limelight. A second protester was also lead out first by NRA members and then by security guards.
As the protesters left the room, McCain leaned into the microphone for the most emphatic thing he said all morning.
"Well, my friends, we beat you yesterday," he said. "We'll beat you today . . . And we'll beat you tomorrow!"
The crowd rose in an enthusiastic standing ovation, setting aside for the moment any past differences they may be holding against McCain. Some of them dislike his support for campaign finance reform and to standardize the sale of weapons at gun shows, but they largely agree with him on Iraq.
The Webb amendment meant to slow bleed the military and force us into defeat in Iraq failed, the Feingold amendment meant to force us to withdraw and surrender, failed, and the Democratic politicians were forced to take a stand either with or against MoveOn which attacked General Petraeus', the commander on the ground in Ira and his credibility.
Links to the text and roll call votes are at each of those posts linked to above.
Comments From the Left Field states that Harry Reid needs to step down as majority leader ( good luck with that folks) and goes one to state:
This, however, is simply unacceptable, and given Democratic history this year on trying to pull the breaks on the Iraq war, inconceivable. From where I stand, Dodd’s vote can be little else but a symbolic attempt to stand firm, but it does little to actually forward any progress in putting an end to the Iraq war, especially when you consider that future bills will only be watered down in an attempt to woo Republican moderates over to our side.
An effective Senate Majority Leader would have his head.
But we have Harry Reid, ladies and gentleman. The man who folds when he should stand, and stands when he should fold.
I have to admit they have a point there. Harry Reid had the perfect opportunity to reach out and work with the moderate Republicans before the August recess, before we, Americans, started being shown any progress in Iraq, but Reid didn't. Reid took a hard line and decided it would be all or nothing, he counted on the August recess to divide the Republicans.
That backfired when we started seeing reports of success and progress coming from Iraq, some of those reports from Democratic politicians returning from Iraq with good news.
August recess ended and Reid, seeing the writing on the wall decided, too late, ok, lets negotiate, lets compromise, but the Republicans had also seen the progress taking place in Iraq and stood united for the most part, once again.
I truly would not want to be the person opening Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's emails these days.
I see by the insanity I get emailed exactly how bad their emails must be, especially if some of the reactions across the blogosphere are being transmitted into emails from the far left liberal unhinged. NewsHoggers:
Americans are sick and tired of the politics of fear. We're not willing to trade them for the politics of cowardice and avoidance tactics disguised as bi-partisanship. What we need right now is for the Democrats to start practicing the politics of courage. Bring the bills onto the floor despite the cloture votes. Let the debate commence and trust the people to judge for themselves who is working for the best interests of the country. If the Democrats won't trust us now, they had better not bank on our trusting them again at the ballot box in 08.
Ya'll think WE are hard on the Democratic politicians? Those reactions are from Democratic supporters!!!!!!
Liberty Street has a very strange almost creepy angle on this:
I think it's Big Tent Democrat who doesn't understand. Democrats do get it. Of course they do. Obviously, they know that the power of the purse trumps filibusters and vetoes. But knowing and doing are two different things. The problem is not that Democrats don't know what they should be doing -- the problem is that they are too terrified of the Republican minority to do it. Even when only 11% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. Mel Martinez's approval is much more important to congressional Democrats than that of any ordinary American. Even when, like a child desperately seeking the approval of a hypercritical parent, they cannot ever be craven enough to get that Republican love.
They are terrified of the Republicans? They want the Republicans love?
Ok, maybe time for that one to take their meds.
TPM points out that the Democrats are losing votes instead of gaining them:
The last time the Senate voted on Levin-Reed, it was blocked with 52 in favor to 47 against. Proponents of our continued presence in Iraq have held solidly together, with the same number of votes this time as they had last time.
I will say it again, I am glad I am not the one receiving the emails that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are no doubt getting.
I will end this as it is head line, from John Mccain:
"Well, my friends, we beat you yesterday," he said. "We'll beat you today . . . And we'll beat you tomorrow!"
We are united for victory, you are semi united for defeat.
Are these votes and the results of them really that surprising to anyone?
Quite a few articles today regarding Iraq and the Democratic politicians lack of a comprehensive plan regarding Iraq, especially in the face of the statement made by General Petraeus.
First I am going to point you to an article by the National Catholic Reporter and the reason I am starting there is because they are an organization that has opposed military interventions into Iraq from the very first Gulf War in 1991, yet after the testimony given by General Petraeus, they now argue against a precipitous withdrawal.
The recent report to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker turned out to be a sobering moment for Americans listening in on testimony that was, at the very least, refreshing for its lack of bombast and empty promises. War-weary Americans, now torn between Democrats screaming for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and Republicans continuing to justify pressing on to some illusory “victory,” could at least find reassurance in the measure of honesty that was provided by two people charged with a high level of responsibility for the outcome.
NCR has opposed military interventions into Iraq from the very first Gulf War in 1991, fearing from the start what has come to pass. Iraq is a country destroyed. That awareness does little, however, to alter the current mess. It is with great reluctance that we would argue against a precipitous withdrawal. With the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, it appears we now have before us a degree of reality that provides some space for us to begin talking about how to retreat from Iraq with the least possible further bloodshed and the best possible outcome for Iraq.
The reason I started with that particular article is because it defines the problems that are now facing the Democratic politicians and their upcoming plans to fight against Victory in Iraq at every turn.
Next we turn to The World Tribune, which also explains the problems for the Democrats in the Senate and the House.
The current situation in Iraq is enormously complicated and complex. Anyone who advises a seemingly simple solution is simply wrong. That goes for both sides in the debate. Nonetheless it’s increasingly clear that any Congressional pullout “timetables” have much more to do with the Presidential election in November 2008 than any realistic chance of a major draw down of U.S. military forces in the next year....
[...]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has prepared to marshal his Democrat Party for yet another vainglorious rhetorical assault on the Administration’s Iraq policy despite the Democrats lacking sufficient votes to force a serious policy change. Reid’s admonition “asking Republicans not to march in lockstep with the President” should be reversed; why not ask Senator Reid not to march in lockstep with the dictates of left-wing kooks such as MoveOn.org whose credibility should not extend beyond the Berkeley beltway?
The Wall Street Journal stated editorially, “The Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos said that Gen. Petraeus would not be the author of the report; it would be written ‘by Administration political operatives.’ He opened hearings, moments before the General was due to speak by saying, ‘We cannot take anything this Administration says on Iraq at face value.”
But as the Times of London opined, “Those Democrats who have insinuated that Gen. Petraeus is in the pocket of the White House disqualify themselves as serious participants in the national debate; even in a war of entrenched political positions, such smear tactics should have no place.”
Which brings us to Harry Reid and his own conflicting statements and flip flopping all over the spectrum.
The Corner shows this quite well with two simple statements from Harry Reid, 6 days apart from each other:
September 13, 2007: Dems to ‘pursue modest bipartisan measures’ on Iraq
Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures to alter U.S. military strategy in Iraq, hoping to use incremental changes instead of aggressive legislation to break the grip Republicans have held over the direction of war policy.
(“Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy,” Washington Post, September 13, 2007)
Senate Democratic leaders said yesterday that they are abandoning a bipartisan effort to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by next spring. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said that Democrats had been willing to make the troop withdrawal a "goal" in order to attract GOP support, but it never materialized. Instead, Reid will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.
(“Democrats’ Iraq Push on Hold,” Washington Post, September 19, 2007)
The Democrats have never had a plan on Iraq, they campaigned for the November 2006 elections on nothing more than "we want change", never being asked or offering a viable option for success and victory but only offering surrender and defeat in relation to Iraq.
They have not been able to keep that promise because although they wanted change, when President Bush made those changes they stubbornly closed their eyes and refused to acknowledge how strategies were changed (counterinsurgency tactics were implemented by General Petraeus as well as clearing and holding instead of clearing and moving on, just to show two small examples of those changes).
They continued with their denial even when progress started being seen and even reported by their own politicians that returned from Iraq, war critics such as Brian Baird, who has been against every Iraq action since the beginning, came back, risked his own political career and said the troops have earned more time.
Once again the Democratic politicians decided to go back to the Webb amendment to extend troop leave to try to "slow bleed" our military capabilities, which they were counting on John Warner to support, thereby bringing a few other Republican votes with him, yet again, General Petraeus threw a wrench in their gears.
The potential change of heart by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, could sap momentum from the push by Democrats to win the 60 votes they need to secure passage of the plan drafted by Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat.
Mr. Warner voted in July for the Webb proposal, which would require that American troops have as much time at home as they spend overseas before being redeployed. Even with Mr. Warner’s support, Democrats would need to win over at least three more Republicans for a chance at passage when the proposal comes up for a vote again, perhaps as soon as Wednesday.
Mr. Webb’s proposal, an amendment to the annual defense policy bill, is being strongly opposed by the Pentagon as an intrusion in complex troop deployment schedules. Mr. Warner, during a Republican Party luncheon, said he was rethinking his support given President Bush’s plan to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq this year.
Republican officials said that after extensive conversations with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Mr. Warner had concluded that he could not support Mr. Webb’s plan in its current form.
An aide to Mr. Warner would only say that the senator was still in discussions about the measure. “Senator Warner is in continuing consultation with senators on both sides of the aisle and with the Department of Defense relative to the Webb amendment,” said his chief of staff, Carter Cornick.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican moderate who supports the Webb proposal, said she believed opposition from Mr. Warner would make it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to pick up the Republican votes needed to prevent a filibuster.
Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia, one of 10 House Democrats to vote in July against setting a timeline for withdrawal, called Petraeus's testimony ``powerful and persuasive.'' And Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, also said after the testimony that he remained opposed to a congressionally mandated pullout.
Instead of deciding to try to at least win in Iraq and embrace the progress that General Petraeus showed that we are seeing in Iraq, the Democratic political leaders will, once again, fight for no other reason than to fight and be able to tell their far left, MoveOn.org type base that they are "trying".
For the Democratic politicians, politics will again trump what is best for our country and attaining victory.
