Lieberman On Pulic Option: 'I'm going to be stubborn on this'

(Cartoon by Lisa Benson, via Townhall)
Wall Street Journal reports that Joseph Lieberman has drawn a line in the sand on Obamacare. If any form of the public option is included, he will not vote for the bill:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? "The answer is no," he says in an interview from his Senate office. "I feel very strongly about this." How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won't be used unless private insurance plans aren't spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.

So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? "Correct," he says.

Huffington Post reports that Former DNC Chair Howard Dean has told them that Senate Democrats are "in deep trouble."

"So this is really tough. I didn't anticipate being in this position. I thought it would pass. Maybe Harry has some magic up his sleeve. But I don't see how he gets those four votes [Sens. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.)] without compromising the bill," Dean concluded.

The former Vermont governor warned that if the party allowed the four moderates to further water down the bill (or defeat it altogether) it could lead to primary challenges or a drop in fundraising from the party's base.

"If you have members refusing to vote for Reid on procedural issues you will have a revolt in the party," Dean said. "What is the point of having a 60-vote margin? This is going to be death for the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]. Why would anyone donate to them if they're supporting candidates who defeat the Democratic agenda?"

Last but not least, The Hill with some choice Lieberman quotes peppered through their piece titled "One year after retaining his gavel, Lieberman threatens health bill."

Lieberman criticized the bill crafted by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), which does not call for a public option and is viewed as the most conservative bill put forward by a Democratic leader.

In an interview on Fox Business Network last month, Lieberman said, “I’m afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country.

“If you ask me, I’d say we should really focus on what’s called healthcare delivery reform,” Lieberman added. “To me, the first big step is to make some changes that really do bend the increasing costs of healthcare down.”

Pressed on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Lieberman emphasized his yes vote on Saturday to proceed to debate on healthcare reform

“I voted [Saturday] night, as 59 others did, to go along with debate,” said Lieberman. “But I want us to begin not only debating healthcare reform, but doing something about healthcare reform. I don’t think anybody thinks this bill will pass as written.”

On his position as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Lieberman states "Look, I’m grateful my colleagues enabled me to continue as chairman. I hope that I’ve done a good job, including the Fort Hood hearings … But when the caucus welcomed me back into the caucus and enabled me to continue as chairman of the committee, I think they understood that I’d been reelected as an Independent, and that I wasn’t going to view issues through the prism of partisan politics, but that I’d do what I thought made sense — for my state, for my country. And that’s what I’ve done. I certainly didn’t sign on to walk the party line, whenever anybody showed me where it was."

It has been suggested by many that Reid will push the public option right to the edge, so that he can say he "tried", then drop it in order to get a bill, any bill labeled "Healthcare reform", passed.

.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) says he doesn't support the Baucus bill

Video below stands alone.



.

Interrogations Made U.S. Safer- Video of Cheney Interview

Very interesting read over at Washington Post about Obama claiming those harsh interrogation tactics used by the CIA didn't make us safer and showing that to be one of his most blatant lies to date.

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

Even more interesting, also found in that column is that while the Obama administration published these details, and they went ignored, they "blacked out" the details of the achievements and information that was obtained at the time.

A selective release.

Here is the kicker though:

The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

Perhaps this is why former Vice President Dick Cheney is publicly calling for the release of the memos which showed the results of those interrogations.

Show America not just the tactics used to obtain information, but also how many lives that same information saved.

Now that the memos showing the rulings of interrogation techniques have been released, the Obama administration should release additional documents that show what the interrogations yielded to make it an "honest debate," former Vice President Dick Cheney told FOX News on Monday.

In an interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity aired on "Hannity" Monday night, Cheney questioned the point of releasing the legal decisions behind the interrogations but not the outcome of them.

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney said.

Video of the Cheney interview with Hannity found at YouTube here and shown below.



Added Bonus: Joe Lieberman states that release of these memos "helps our enemies."

Joe Lieberman Keeps Committee Chair And The Left Howls In Outrage

Joseph Lieberman, former Democrat turned Independent who votes with the Democratic Caucus about everything except National Security issues, backed John McCain for the presidency.

Barack Obama won the election the far far left liberal Democrats wanted Joe Lieberman "punished" by stripping his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, for daring to use his vote the way he thought best and after the Democratic caucus met, it was determined that Joe Lieberman would keep his chairmanship of that committee and lose chairmanship of a subcommittee for the Environment and Public Works Committee.

“He’s part of this caucus,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said after the Democratic caucus voted behind closed doors in the old Senate chamber off the Capitol Rotunda. “We are not looking back. We are looking forward.”

Mr. Lieberman, who had angered many Democrats by campaigning for his longtime friend Mr. McCain and sharply criticizing Mr. Obama, emerged from the private session looking pleased. He called the result “fair and forward-looking” and one of “reconciliation and not retribution.”

YouTube clip of Harry Reid making the announcement below, published by TPM.



The far far left liberal Democrats across the web have been actively campaigning for Lieberman's removal from the Democratic caucus as well as his being stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and with today's news about this not happening, a few of them are howling in outrage as evidenced by Jane Hamsher from FireDogLake:

I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.

No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.

The same type of temper tantrum can be found over at Americablog:

Maybe we don't need those extra Senate seats in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia. I mean, I'd love for Begich, Franken and Martin to win, but what's the point? Why bust our asses for these guys, for the party, when people like LIeberman, who actually campaigned AGAINST some of these guys, are rewarded for their betrayal? It's becoming increasingly clear that the current crop of Democrats are genetically incapable of showing, or growing, a spine. The only way to get anything in this party is to publicly betray the party, to beat the living crap out of them, to stick the knife in deep and twist. Lesson duly noted.

Blah blah blah blah blah... no doubt when another election comes up they will suck it up and do what the Democratic politicians know they will do and vote party anyway, but for now, they are having their little hissy fits.

Last example, so it doesn't get repetitive but shows the basic theme of the far far left's howling at the moon in outrage, comes from Daily Kos:

But in all seriousness, I think we've now learned that Joe Lieberman is the smartest politician in DC. He knew Democrats were spineless capitulators who would cave at the merest threat no matter how many times he shit in their face.

He's probably having a great laugh about it just about now.

Given how much he is hated by his constituents, he at least knows that the Senate Democratic caucus are a bunch of spineless asses utterly unwilling and unable to deliver the change the American people requested.

Chris Cillizza from The Washington Post's "The Fix" pretty much sums it up:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

Last but not least, David Sirota from Huffington Post:

So, in many ways, the public attacks on "the Left" from congressional Democrats - while motivated from their Reagan-era cultural hatred of Dirty Fucking Hippies - is to be completely expected from a party that has failed to deliver on every major progressive promise it has made, and has nonetheless faced no real retribution. It is par for the course from leaders who quite understandably feel little fear from a still-weak progressive movement.

They believe - with justifiable reason - that come election time we'll all forget their failings, whether failing to end the war or failing to disempower Lieberman. They believe that most "progressive movement" activists will actually do what they did during the last election - berate anyone who floats the idea that movement organizing and carrot-and-stick treatment of the Democratic Party during election time is actually a good thing. They believe, in short, that come 2010, we'll all fall in line and be an ATM machine of partisan campaign contributions and candidate volunteer time because we are still very much organized as a party, not a movement.

And here's the thing: Except for a few fleeting primaries, most of recent history suggests their calculation is right.

So, bottom line is, Lieberman got a little slap on the wrist, but kept what was most important to him. Senate Democrats showed they would not cave to netroots and far left liberals of their party and the netroots are "claiming" they are understand they cannot force their politicians to comply with them, and whining about how they aren't "respected", while throwing tantrums.

They will still fall in line like robotic lapdogs in 2010.

You catch more whining and fits of temper over at memeorandum.

.

Joseph Lieberman Launches Group: Citizens For McCain

Huge Hat Tip to Samantha Torrence for the pointer to this new group called "Citizens For McCain", to which Joseph Lieberman gives people an option to join with John McCain, no matter what their party affiliation.

John McCain knows he is going to be the President of all Americans, not just the ones that voted for him. No matter what party you belong to or who you supported during the primary campaign, we want you to be part of our team. Please fill out the form below to become part of Citizens for McCain or sign up someone you know. Or Click Here to send a message to your friends.

With so many Hillary Clinton supporters now communicating with the Republican National Committee to ask what they can do help McCain, this group's launch is good timing.

Read the rest at Sam's piece on DJ.

[Update] Sam just sent me the email from Joseph Lieberman to post in full:

To: Fellow McCain Supporters

From: Senator Joe Lieberman

Date: June 5th, 2008

Today, I asked Senator McCain if I could create and chair a new grassroots organization, "Citizens for McCain."

Citizens for McCain is an organization within the McCain campaign for people who put country before political party and support the candidate for President who has a proven record of bipartisanship.

As you know, I caucus with the Democrats as a United States Senator and was the Democrat Party's nominee for Vice-President of the United States against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

But first and foremost, I am an American. I have an obligation to do what I think is best for our nation regardless of political party. My love for this country and strong belief in John McCain's character, judgment, and willingness to work with leaders of both parties has convinced me to support him for President.

I have worked with John McCain for many years in the U.S. Senate and know from experience that he can unite Democrats, Republicans and Independents like no one else in this country. He did it in the United States Senate and he can do it as President of the United States.

But we need help from McCain supporters such as you to reach out to Americans who are not currently involved in the campaign. Will you help us by recruiting your friends, family, and co-workers who may not consider themselves members of the Republican Party and ask them to join the Citizens for McCain organization?

I am confident we will find many Democrats and Independents who, like John McCain and me, put country before political party and will support a leader with a real record of bipartisanship.

Time and time again John McCain has put his country first. He refused early release when he was held captive in Vietnam. He continued to put his country first as a national leader in the U.S. Senate. He put country before party when he fought to pass campaign finance reform, sought a bi-partisan solution to the immigration problem, and consistently supported pro-environment policies. His courage to stand up to the failed Iraq war plan of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and lead the fight for a new strategy in Iraq will go down in history, and it saved American lives. These were not always the easy things to do. In fact, they were usually very difficult, and often threatened his political career. But John McCain did what was right.

He said it best in his speech in New Orleans on Tuesday night:

"(The American people) know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any President -- before any party -- before any special interest -- before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always."

The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times. Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton.

Senator McCain has had a very good working relationship with Senator Clinton and will continue to do so in the future. In the same New Orleans speech he said:

"Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend."

I am proud to call John McCain my friend and ask you to help our friend become the next President of the United States.

Please forward this email to your lists today and ask your friends, family, and coworkers who do not consider themselves Republicans to join me in filling out the Citizens for McCain form today.

Thank you for your willingness to help me expand this new organization. Together, we will make history.



.

Joseph Lieberman Criticizes Obama's Judgment And Experience

Joseph Lieberman (ID-Conn.) questioned Barack Obama's judgment and experience regarding Israel, Iran and National Security today following Obama's speech this morning at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

It has been reported that Hamas and The Palestinian Authority both objected to Barack Obama's pro-Israel words today at the AIPAC, but there was someone else that took issue with Obama's words and who implied strongly that those words did not match previous comments of that Obama has made. (I guess Hamas is going to take back its endorsement of Barack Obama now?)

That someone is Joseph Lieberman.

Some things happened today to which ended in an "intense, three-minute conversation" between Barack Obama and Joseph Lieberman.

For those unaware, Joseph Lieberman is the Independent Senator from Connecticut, formerly a Democrat. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats with almost everything except National Security issues.

Joseph Lieberman is also an endorser and one of the staunchest supporters for John McCain in his presidential campaign.

Lieberman participated today in a Republican conference call hosted by the McCain campaign where it is said he "attacked" Barack Obama regarding Obama's foreign policy comments, present and past comments, saying, "Senator Obama argued today that American foreign policy in recent years has essentially sort of strengthened Iran. If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way. It's not because of what we’ve done in Iraq, it’s because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state."

It is reported that Lieberman took center stage after Obama's speech and also mentioned a certain "disconnect" between Obama's past statements and his speech at the AIPAC today.

"To be specific, I was troubled earlier in the campaign season when Sen. Obama compared Iran and other rogue and terrorist states to the Soviet Union, and minimized the threat represented by Iran. I think that’s wrong. Today he said he thought Iran represented a grave threat. I think the statement he made today was right."

Lieberman then brought up the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan manner with 29 Democratic Senators voting for it, but Barack Obama did not.

"That measure was supported by three-fourths of the Senate, including Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Clinton. Sen. Obama opposed it, saying it was saber-rattling referring to the threat of military force. If you look at the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as it was passed, it has none of that in it regarding military action. I still hope he will say that vote was a mistake and he will support that resolution."

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment can be found here. (PDF File)

You can also access that amendment here, just scroll to S11911 and it will bring up the text of the amendment.

That amendment passed with a 76-22 vote.

These comments were made after Lieberman had already congratulated Obama for securing the Democratic nomination and the report of the Obama/Lieberman exchange shows the next event happening as follows. Via Roll Call (Subscription required)

Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.

Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus.

This latest exchange has some bringing up a topic that has been floated before, about Joe Lieberman becoming John McCain's running mate. It is doubtful to many that McCain would do that, but every once in a while there is a buzz about it throughout the blogosphere.

It also bears noting that Joseph Lieberman is not the only one noticing Barack Obama's "evolving" positions regarding Iran.

ABC News and ABC's Political Radar, both took an in depth look at Obama's past statements on Iran and found them to be continually changing.

Cross posted at Digital Journal.

.

Google's YouTube Considers al-Qaeda Videos "Free Speech"?

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General, the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union, the United States Department of State, the Australian Government, Public Safety Canada, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook, South Korean Foreign Ministry, the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,] the United Kingdom Home Office, Pakistan, Russia,] the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,and the Swiss Government. (Reference)

Al-Qaeda's most notable recent attack was on September 11, 2001, when, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks, al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania after passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane.

2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead, excluding the hijackers themselves.

Joseph Lieberman and Google/YouTube:

Senator Joseph Lieberman called on Google's YouTube to remove videos produced by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, showing attacks on US Soldiers and civilians. YouTube removed some videos, but refused to remove others, citing "free speech".

Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman and in a letter sent to Google's YouTube, Lieberman requested that YouTube "remove Internet video content produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda."

Lieberman's letter can be found at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs website and in the letter he points to videos that can be accessed on YouTube that show "assassinations, deaths of U.S. soldiers and civilians, weapons training, incendiary speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and other material intended to encourage violence against the West."

He also asserts that the videos hold the al-Qaeda logo to identify them and he called on Google to "to enforce its own community standards against videos that show gratuitous violence or people getting “hurt, attacked, or humiliated.”

The letter also points out that terror groups use YouTube to "disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training".

In other words, Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training – activities that are all essential to terrorist activity. According to testimony received by our Committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack. YouTube also, unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive, and amplified voice, despite military setbacks or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

In Google's response to Senator Lieberman's concerns, they issued a statement on their YouTube page, saying that some of the videos that Senator Lieberman's staff highlighted did violate their terms of service and had been removed but refused to remove the other videos, saying that "YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy."

WHIR News reports that Lieberman found Google's response "unsatisfactory" and that there is "speculation that he may be seeking the means to more forcefully encourage Google to police YouTube content by way of legislation."

This exchange between Senator Lieberman and Google leaves us with the question of whether al-Qeada videos, identified with the al-Qaeda logo, is protected under "free speech" rights?

Do organizations that have been listed across the world as terror groups enjoy the protections of free speech, via video, according to Google?

.

War of Words, Bush, Obama and Lieberman

President George Bush made a statement to the Israel Knesset this morning, where he pointed out the dangers of appeasing terrorists and compared it to 1939 when an American Senator thought if he had spoken to Hitler the war would have been avoided.

Although President George Bush did not mention and party or politician by name, it is being reported it was a direct "sharp but veiled attack" on Barack Obama and the Democratic party.

Bush's statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Although no specific names were mentioned by Bush, Barack Obama immediately lashed out in statement to CNN, saying:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel…."

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.

Obama asserts that he he has never supported "engagement with terrorists" but according to his own website on the Foriegn Policy page, it states, "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions...."

On that same page, under the "talk to friends and foes" category, it states, "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."

Enter Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democratic Senator for Connecticut who has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and in his statement he asserts that president Bush is "exactly right".

"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that—if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers—they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.”

This war of words between Bush, Obama and Lieberman is starting to create even more controversy with the Democratic bloggers thinking it was a direct political attack aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders as well as the continuing of the hard feelings that Democratic supporters feel about Joseph Lieberman, especially since he announced his support for John McCain.

Obama has often suggested that he would speak with leaders of countries that are listed as terrorist states and as his own website says, he is prepared to do without "preconditions", so his protests now in saying that he has "never supported engagement with terrorists" is directly contradictory from his previous words and statements on his website.

[Update] John McCain weighs in on this newest controversy saying, "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, “I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

Joe Biden (D-Delaware) who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Bush's statement "bullsh*t".

[Update #2] Pelosi's response.

The American Spectator nailed her right to the wall with this:

But I thought the most ironic criticism of the speech came from Nancy Pelosi, who called it "beneath the dignity of the office" for President Bush to visit our staunch ally and make the case against appeasement. This is the same Pelosi, you may recall, who visited the terror state of Syria amid State Department protest and told President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks with its longtime enemy, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied saying anything of the sort.

GAME.SET.MATCH.

What is that old expression about not learning the lessons that history teaches?

.

Lieberman to Endorse McCain

After my previous piece showing the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe following up with the Union Leader, all endorsing John McCain for the GOP nomination, I take a break, come back and find out that Joseph Lieberman is also going to be announcing his support of McCain.

Many, including myself, have floated the idea that should McCain win the Republican nomination, it might not be a stretch to see a McCain/Lieberman ticket and this does nothing to dispel that thought process.

Word is the two will appear on NBC's Today Show as well as at a New Hampshire townhall meeting where Lieberman will officially give his endorsement to John McCain.

An aide to Lieberman tells CNN he decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism."

The Lieberman aide insists the senator does not see this as a "commentary on or an endorsement of the Republican party, only the person."

Lieberman had not planned to endorse anyone until after the primary season, but McCain asked Lieberman for his endorsement a few days after the two men returned from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq together, and Lieberman decided to do it, according to the same Lieberman aide.

All in all, not a bad weekend for John McCain.

.

It's inexcusable for Congress not to fund troops in Iraq

[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:

He vowed in April not to believe any reports of progress, and darned if he hasn’t been as good as gold in keeping that promise.

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.

[Update] Side note here, Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash, admits to the Democrats hypocrisy:

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)

Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Outside the Beltway, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Dumb Ox Daily News, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


.

Finally Lieberman's Speech is Getting Some Attention

The Financial Times has noticed Lieberman's speech when he was speaking at a forum co-hosted by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the Financial Times, but they didn't quote the most important and telling portions of his speech.

Financial Times:

The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year.

He argued that George W. Bush and the Republican presidential candidates remained truer than the Democratic party to its tradition of a "moral, internationalist, liberal and hawkish" foreign policy that was established by presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

The portions that they didn't show but implied in their headline was a harsh critique by Joe Lieberman about the Democratic party as it is today.

Here is a link to the whole speech... everyone should read it, then reread it. He is 100% right.

What FT didn't cover:

Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

[...]

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.

[...]

But another reason for the Democratic flip-flop on foreign policy over the past few years is less substantive. For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism—it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.

In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s – even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest.

[...]

One big reason Kyl and I thought that calling for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization would be politically uncontroversial was because a bipartisan group of 68 senators, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, had already signed onto a piece of legislation introduced earlier in the year that asked for the IRGC’s designation along exactly the same lines as our amendment. Whatever the differences or disagreements on foreign policy or even on Iran, I assumed that tougher, targeted economic sanctions against the IRGC were something that we could all agree on.

I was wrong.

What happened instead is a case study in the distrust and partisan polarization that now poisons our body politic on even the most sensitive issues of national security.

First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.

These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.

On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.

Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories started to spread. Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it—and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.

The problem with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment of course had little to do with its substance, and a lot to do with politics.

[...]


But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.

That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party—but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

I will once again encourage you to read the whole speech.

More from Fox, The Corner, The New York Sun and Weekly Standard.

.

William Kristol Agrees With Me-- Lieberman for Vice President!!!

Should I be scared? Just joking, I like William Kristol but the timing is kind of creepy.

Last night, 11:08 pm my time, 12:08am on Haloscan, I responded to a commenter with this:

I have stated many times I think Lieberman would make a great VP for a Republican candidate.

I still think so.
spree | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 12:08 am |

Which led to a few follow up comments... you can find here.

Before that, back in January of this year I said in a post:

Why not run a ticket with McCain/Lieberman, talk about a purely bipartisan administration... that would, indeed, send Hillary and most all of the other Democrats running for the hills, screaming and tearing their hair out as well as quite a few Republicans joining them.

Imagine my surprise to be browsing around today and find this over at Weekly Standard.

Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.) But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman--those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?

--William Kristol

He originally was talking about Joseph Lieberman's speech which we brought to you yesterday and is still being talked about today.

He seriously took the Democratic politicians to task for their idiocy and being willing to endanger America for nothing more than to score a political point with their far left, liberal, unhinged faction of their party supporters.

Here was the except that I showed yesterday:

The subject of Senator Lieberman’s talk was “The Politics of National Security,” in which he spoke about the future of the Democratic Party and its response to the threat of Iran.

In the address, Senator Lieberman stated, “Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”

Senator Lieberman also indicated, “…there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.”

Go read his whole speech.

Considering I find William Kristol as a good writer with a wonderfully analytical mind, so I find it a compliment that he agrees with what I have been stating for over a year now.

Joe Lieberman would make a great Vice President for a Republican President.

I might not agree with Jolting Joe on a lot of social issues but I have said since I first started blogging, he is a man of principle and those are hard to come by these days, especially in our politicians.

A winning ticket if I ever saw one.

Related:
All my Lieberman Posts can be found here on one page.

[Update] The Corner is game for the idea!!!

Mark Noonan has me beat, he says he mentioned it before I even knew what blogs were in 2005...LOL

Seriously, I could never vote for Lieberman as President because too much of his agenda is liberal, but I do think he would make a great VP, the mixture of a Republican President with Lieberman as VP would temper extremism of either side.

It is something to think about.

.

Democrats Incapable of Leading

An excellent, point by point piece in the Wall Street Journal's, Opinion Journal today, by none other than the man that Democrats love to hate, Karl Rove, and his words are the reason.

Following up on Joseph Lieberman's harsh words for the Democratic politicians that would rather play politics than to get anything done or protect America we see that Karl Rove lists the specific areas where the Democrats have failed to lead.

The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.

Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.

[...]

Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.

Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

I am going to stop there for a second to point out that a small faction of the Democratic leadership has just recently admitted that surge is producing results, giving credit where credit is due.

Lieberman, which the Democrats try to hard to disown, might disagree with the majority of Democratic politicians on the issue of Iraq, but votes with them on almost all social issues.

He is not liked because he stands on principle and is strong on National Security.

From yesterday:

Actions like todays only highlight Lieberman's point even more.

The subject of Senator Lieberman’s talk was “The Politics of National Security,” in which he spoke about the future of the Democratic Party and its response to the threat of Iran.

In the address, Senator Lieberman stated, “Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

“Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.”

Senator Lieberman also indicated, “…there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.”

Go read his whole speech.

Following up we have Steny Hoyer, who was chosen as House Majority Leader, despite Nancy Pelosi trying with all her might to get John Murtha picked back in November of 2006:

Preceeding this vote, Pelosi was selected as speaker of the house. Then she immediately puts her prestige as speaker on the line by officially nominating John Murtha as house majority leader, up against Steny Hoyer. And LOSES.


Hoyer was elected on a vote of 149-86.

The balloting marked a personal triumph for him, but also a snub to Pelosi, moments after the rank and file selected her unanimously to become speaker when the House convenes in January.

Just yesterday, Steny Hoyer showed why the his party bypassed Pelosi's wishes and voted him into that position.

Because he does have principles and he is smart enough not to ignore what is right in front of his face.

I might not agree with him on most issues, but he was right when he announced the surge is working. (Disclaimer: This might just be his trial balloon to see if the Democrats can try to take some credit for the success in Iraq, which won't work since they have done everything in their power to stop our troops from succeeding, but the words still needed to be said by a Democratic leader and they were.)

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.

"Stability and a decrease in violence, they've done that - God bless them. I'm not surprised that they did," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.

Although the decline in causalities is "a very positive sign" -- U.S. casualties have been declining every month since June -- Hoyer said political reconciliation remains an elusive goal. Hoyer added that the Bush administration should have given more consideration to the Baker-Hamilton report released last year.

"I am not surprised, therefore, that when we send 20,000 additional troops and put them in an area of consequence that those 20,000 troops from the best army in the world, the best trained, best equipped army in the world brings a very heightened security," he said.

We also have Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii):

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said he plans to find out the cause of the decline in casualties when he goes to Iraq later this month. (Hear Audio)

"I really don't know," Inouye said regarding why the decline in casualties has occurred. "Maybe it's good fortune. Maybe we're doing the right thing. I hope so. Whenever some life is saved, it's positive."

They are few and far between but a couple Democrats are capable of trying to save their own skin by admitting the truth and taking the heat from the far left groups like Code Pink and MoveOn.org rather than having the American public see them ignore any and all success.

They can spin it however they want, but admitting the progress and success in Iraq is the important thing at the moment.

Back to Opinion Journal piece now, where Rove does acknowledge that certain Democratic politicians have bucked their leadership to keep our troops supplied and safe while abroad.

After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.

(Note: Those Democratic politicians are now being targeted by the far left for daring vote on principle instead of along party line)

On Mukasey:

After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.

Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship."

Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.

The failures of the Democratic "leadership:

The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.

Rove ends with this:

Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.

The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

Which brings us full circle to what I said at the end of my last post:

The can cry all they want about the nasty Republicans "blocking" everything they want to do, but as the majority, their strength, if they had any, would be in working with the minority so that filibusters wouldn't be necessary.... they choose not to do so because it would make their far left, liberal faction of their party unhappy.

Instead, they make a conscious choice to make the independents and their moderate base unhappy which is the whole reason their approval ratings are the lowest in Congressional history.

The Democrats, by being the majority, control the agenda and they deliberately pick the fights and then whine when the Republicans fight back using the methods in place for that very reason.

Suggestion: Stop picking fights deliberately unless you really want to fight.

Karl Rove has just brilliantly laid out every weakness in the Democratic party that can and should be used against them in the 2008 elections.

The Democrats have proven themselves incompetent of leading over the last year as well as being incapable of acknowledging the truth and unable to stand up to the far left faction of their party.

Others discussing this:
Sister Toldjah, Blue Crab Boulevard and Don't Go Into The Light.

.

Veterans on the Hill

[Update]9/18/07-More accounts from Tanker Brothers.

(Picture from Townhall, Mary Katherine Ham)

First accounts of Veterans on the Hill are in. (Vets For Freedom joined with other organizations and veterans to organize this)

I am starting with Snooper from Take Our Country Back and a contributor here at Wake up America.

Breakfast With The President:

We assaulted The Hill today, 250+ Vets For Freedom in alliance with nearly 600 of Families United. We spoke with our Representatives and our Senators. Most of them were completely on our side and some of them were receptive. The others were flat-out losers.

We had a press conference around 1430 hours. Naturally, the moonbats just felt it a requirement to break the laws...again...and were arrested. I believe 4 or 5 were arrested because we ignored them. However, all 250+ of us diligently observed the Code Wacko Pinko Moonbat Fruit Loops as they unlawfully unfurled their banners....

[...]

I find it curious that we, professional warriors, do not feel the need to disrupt moonbat rallies. Yet, the Moonbats in the Fruit Loop Brigades, feel it needful to disrupt ours. Why is that? Oh. Wait. Fruit Loops have no respect for anyone or anything but themselves. I forgot.

As we were getting on stage and waiting for many Congress Critters to arrive, the moonbats began to chant something retarded like "healthcare not warfare." They were drowned out by Kansas:

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Go read the rest and see his pictures and keep your eye out at Right in a Left World also, Pastor Ed will be posting his accounts also.

Then from TownHall, Mary Katherine Ham was there and she also has some great photos, the one above is from her set.

In an event planned this summer to coincide with the Petraeus Report, Vets for Freedom brought about 250 pro-war vets to the Hill to meet with representatives and senators and talk about the importance of finishing the mission. Here's a group with Sen. Saxby Chambliss, one of whom had three Purple Hearts pinned to his chest and several of whom were Vietnam vets who don't want to make what they call the "same mistake" in Iraq by leaving precipitously. Pete Hegseth, Vets for Freedom director, called the turnout "more than expected," and the crowd absolutely overwhelmed the counter-protest from mouthy anti-war folks nearby.

Mccain and Liberman got a wonderful reception and Lieberman stuck it to MoveOn.or by all accounts.

"Just because you're for someone else's freedom of speech doesn't mean you take a vow of silence when they say something stupid or despicable," Lieberman said, in reference to the MoveOn ad. MoveOn, of course, came in for the biggest boos of the day.

Needless to say, MoveOn isn't very popular among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, their families, all veterans from any timeframe or the Families United crowd.

Of course, as usual, the protesters just had to get themselves arrested.

Go see the rest of the wonderful photos from Mary Katherine Ham.

The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, cheered on by Iraq war veterans and their families on the White House's South Lawn, urged lawmakers Tuesday to back his plan to withdraw some troops from Iraq but keep at least 130,000 through next summer or longer.

"I ask the United States Congress to support the troop levels and the strategies I have embraced," Bush said, to loud cheers and chants of "USA! USA!"

The president briefly addressed about 850 members of military support organizations who were invited to the White House for coffee, juice and pastries. With almost everyone wearing red shirts, people from several organizations gathered at picnic tables set up on the South Lawn in the morning sun.

Among the groups gathered at picnic tables set up on the South Lawn were Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Vets for Freedom, the American Legion, and Veterans of Foreign Wars organizations. Along with the president and his wife, Laura, other top administration officials also attended the event, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bush offered sympathy to those in the crowd who lost a loved one in the war, and he thanked war veterans as well as active-duty military members.

"On this beautiful morning, we thank you for your steadfast resolve," he said, before lingering to shake hands and mingle with the crowd.

The president's remarks were greeted with full-throated support from the crowd, including occasional shouts of "We love you."

The President's speech:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Laura and I are honored to welcome you here to the South Lawn. Welcome to the people's house. (Applause.) First, I'd like to thank Katy Benko for singing the national anthem. It's not only a beautiful morning to sing the national anthem, it's a beautiful setting in which to sing the national anthem. Katy's husband, Ryan, is deployed to Iraq. Katy, make sure you email him and tell him how appreciative we are of your service, and tell him how appreciative all of us are of your voice. (Applause.)

Laura and I want to thank the members of our -- my administration for joining us. Mr. Vice President, we're really thrilled you're here. Thank you for coming, sir. (Applause.) Secretary of State Condi Rice is with us today. Madam Secretary, appreciate you being here. (Applause.) Secretary Jim Nicholson of the Veterans Affairs Administration; thanks for coming, Jim. (Applause.)

For you veterans who are here, there is no more solemn obligation by your government to make sure you have all it takes to -- for your health care, and for your support. I feel a very strong obligation, since it was my decision that committed young men and women into combat, to make sure our veterans who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan get all the help this government can possibly provide. (Applause.)

I appreciate the Secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, for joining us; the Secretary of the Navy, Don Winter; General "Hoss" Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his wife Sandee. By the way, General Cartwright is a Marine. (Applause.) I'm not playing to the crowd or anything. (Laughter.)

I want to welcome members of this crowd who have lost a loved one in this war against terror. Our hearts go out to you. We love you. The best way to honor the sacrifices that your loved one made, as well as the sacrifice you have made, is to accomplish the mission, is to achieve the peace. (Applause.)

Laura and I welcome the families who have got a loved one overseas, whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan, fighting these extremists and terrorists. The best way to honor your loved one is to make sure that he or she has the full support of the United States government as you accomplish the mission that we have set. (Applause.) By the way, for the loved ones here, I fully understand the best way to sustain a volunteer army is to make sure you're happy -- (laughter) -- is to make sure you've got good housing; to make sure that you've got good health care; to make sure that you understand that we know that you're in this fight along with your husband or wife or son or daughter. And that's exactly how this administration feels. (Applause.)

For the veterans who are here, for those of you who are veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan, thank you for volunteering in the face of danger. (Applause.) And for the people who aren't veterans yet, still remain on active duty, thanks for wearing the uniform of the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We're proud of you. (Applause.)

I want to thank the service organizations and those who have come together to support our families and our troops. I can't tell you how important it is for organizations like the Vets for Freedom or the VFW or the American Legion and other groups to -- Gold Star Mothers, got you, okay, thank you -- Blue Star Mothers, Gold Star Mothers, all the mothers, yes. (Applause.) Every day is Mother's Day as far as your concerned, isn't it? (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Don't forget the dads.

THE PRESIDENT: And the dads, yes. I knew this was going to happen. (Laughter.) Yes, the wives; okay, fine. (Laughter.) Everybody is supporting our troops. I want to thank you for doing it. (Applause.)

It's important people hear from you. It's important people hear your voice. And I want to thank you for organizing. I want to thank you not only for the grassroots support of our families, I want to thank you for going up to Capitol Hill. And here's a message I hope you deliver: The Commander-in-Chief wants to succeed -- (applause) -- and the Commander-in-Chief takes seriously the recommendations of our military commanders. General Petraeus came back to the United States to deliver the recommendations he made to me. Inherent in his recommendations is, one, his belief we're succeeding, his belief we will succeed, and I ask the United States Congress to support the troop levels and the strategies I have embraced. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. When the history books are finally written about this chapter in the war against extremists and radicals, they will recognize certain truths: one, that we recognize that if we were to retreat from the Middle East the enemy would not be content to remain where they are, but they would follow us here. We recognize that the best way to protect our homeland is to defeat an enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here on the streets of America. And we recognize that liberty is powerful, that liberty will yield the peace that we want for generations to come; that will recognize that this generation of Americans did the hard work now, so that future generations could live in security and peace.

And so on this beautiful morning we thank you for your steadfast resolve, we appreciate your support of those brave souls who have volunteered in the face of the danger. We ask for God's blessings on the families and our troop in harm's way. And we thank you from the bottom of our collective hearts. God bless you all. (Applause.)

There is the difference between the anti-war crowd and these fine veterans and their families, supporters and friends.

(THESE folks love the USA and they are not ashamed to show it.)



(These folks don't)


Could the contrast BE any more stark?

.