The Democrats who have been arguing against President Bush's "surge" plan for Iraq, are waging a new war against the President's ability to control the military in Iraq.
Democrats have promised to produce a relentless torrent of legislation on Iraq. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said -
"There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," Schumer said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home."
And Chuck appears to be correct so far.
After the House passed the recent non-binding resolution on the President's "surge" plan in Iraq, top House Democrats, led by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), went to work on a plan that would essentially put an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq.
The plan works like this, Murtha will attach a provision to an upcoming appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that will restrict the release of funds for troops heading to Iraq unless a list of requirements are met. These requirements, as Murtha admits, can only be met by a few of the units to be used for the proposed "surge" plan by the President. In effect, this will restrict the President's ability to select and deploy troops, provide reinforcements, move troops, all the things that a Commander-in-Chief might need to do to win a war. Indeed, General Petraeus may find it difficult to execute his plan to suppress the insurgency in Iraq with these restrictions in place.
But the plan goes further than that. These restrictions on which troops would be available to redeploy to Iraq would make it hard for the Pentagon to find replacements for troops returning from the Iraq theater. So they come home, but no reinforcements can go back in their place. Essentially, it ends the US military presence in Iraq through a "slow bleed." And without directly cutting off funding. It's a sly plan that placates the anti-war left who want the troops out of Iraq yesterday while not seeming to turn their back on the troops already there.
Attaching this plan to an appropriations bill is a sly move. Because the President needs these funds to be passed by Congress in order to continue funding for military operations in Iraq. And appropriations bills cannot be filibustered.
Murtha explains that his plan is setup to look out for the troops' best welfare by making sure they are equipped, trained, rested, etc. But almost in the same breath admits that due to the requirements of his plan they won't have the training, they won't have the equipment, they won't be able to do the work. He even goes so far as to say, "We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can’t be done"
In response to Murtha's rambling, Fox's Britt Hume and a few others had this to say about Murtha's plan...
Murtha's plan may see its way through the House but is likely to face a tough fight in the Senate. Even if it somehow passes through both chambers it's hard to say where this will go exactly. The Constitution seems clear on who commands the military - and it's not Congress. The President has made his side clear however, and he seems ready for a fight.
But it doesn't stop with Murtha's plan. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) also have a plan regarding Iraq. Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Their plan is to simply repeal the authorization given by Congress in 2002 to use military force in Iraq. They will replace this with new legislation that will restrict the U.S. military's role in Iraq. House Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), supports this plan.
Charles Krauthammer had this to say about these plans at the Washington Post:
"Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so."
And it looks as if the Democrats might be overplaying their hand with all this as well. Two recent opinion polls show that Americans aren't necessarily behind the idea of a hasty retreat from Iraq. From the Washington Times:
"According to a poll released Feb. 20 by Public Opinion Strategies, by a margin of 53 to 46 percent, Americans agree that "The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq." By 57-41 percent margins, voters agree with both of the following statements: "The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism," and "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security."
Now Murtha seems to be taking a trip back to the drawing board even before the plan is officially introduced to Congress.
"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats."
The Democrats have other problems to contend with: the ultra left. Besides demanding an immediate end to the war, ultra left wing elements are demanding impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And they seem to be growing increasingly impatient as time goes on and these two items are not addressed.
For proof of that, I need only to point you to Michelle Malkin who has this article concerning Sen. Patty Murray in Washington State - with story and links to video - Dear God, by all means watch the video. Further analysis here.
While this is really just a high level outline (obviously we wouldn't want the actual details out floating around for the enemy to see), it shows the level of thought that went into the plan and how comprehensive the strategy is. Worth looking at for sure.
Glenn Beck created a video last year to show the other side of Iraq. The one you don't see in the news. It's a short video but it provides at least a glimpse of something other than suicide bombings and dead soldiers.
Jabria Jassim is an Elgin Community College chemistry professor who moved to America from Iraq years ago. Recently she returned to Baghdad to visit relatives. While there, she made these observations.
Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din expounds on America's liberation of Iraq. This video has been featured here and here.
As a side note, one of the sites I listed at the top of this post is patdollard.com. Without taking the time to expound on Pat Dollard, who he is, or what his site is about, I'll simply *highly* encourage you to check it out for yourself. You can start by going to this video.
I had to pass this on because Rudy really articulates this well and it reflects my view about how Congress should see itself. Watch the video on the page. It's an interview of Rudy Giuliani by Larry King. In it, Rudy talks about the non-binding resolution being debated in Congress about the Iraq war. Good stuff.
Despite the apparent troubled state of the North Korean economy, Chavez and some of those in his inner circle seem to admire the North Korean model. In a document co-authored by education minister Hector Navarro, former industry and commerce minister Jesue Montilla, and former central planning minister Jorge Giordini, the authors state:
"Socialism survives [...] in North Korea which, although isolated and alone, has achieved a strong economy."
SOURCE: "Ciencia y Tecnología para Venezuela: Una propuesta alternativa", (Science and Technology for Venezuela, an alternative suggestion), Editora Apucv, Caracas, 1994, pp. 7 and 26, authored by Jorge Giordani, Juan de Jesús Montilla, Víctor Morles, Hector Navarro.
This is a reference to Mao Zedong, Marxist leader that led to China's Communist revolution. A certain parallel in ideology to the communist run North Korea.
Indeed, a BBC article states that "Mr Chavez wants to turn Venezuela from a capitalist into a socialist society. The plan to socialize the nation is spelled out in, "The Simon Bolivar National Plan."
Venezuela and North Korea are expected to setup embassy's in each other's countries and are expected to craft an "oil for arms deal" in the near future.
Former Chavez loyalist, Brigadier General Nestor Gonzalez Gonzalez, has said:
" - It is too early to determine with certainty what the nuclear weapons plans of Hugo Chavez are - But Monday's re-affirmation of support for North Korea is a troubling sign," warns Gonzalez. "I personally know Chavez very well, and he is capable of anything."
Venezuela's ties to nations such as Iran and North Korea are certainly troubling. So is the thought of a communist, nuclear power in South America.
Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chavez, officially has a new name: dictator. The Venezuelan National Assembly has unanimously granted approval to give the Venezuelan leader the power to rule by decree for eighteen months. These decrees would be enacted as laws directly, bypassing the Venezuelan congress.
Chavez has many stated goals while this power is enacted including:
Eliminating term limits for the president in Venezuela (which is Chavez)
Accelerating the process of converting to socialism
Nationalizing certain economic sectors such as:
Telecom
Power
Oil
The Venezuelan National Assembly has been comprised only of Chavez supporters since opposition boycotted elections in 2005 and now have no representation in the Assembly.
Chavez purchased 100,000 AK-47 rifles, Mig 29 fighters, and attack helicopters from Russia back in 2005. The US expects shipments of AK-47 rifles to reach 300,000.
In addition to this, Chavez has amassed a "2 million-man" civilian defense force to stave off attacks that he claims will inevitably come from the United States.
"Over recent months, the populist president has warned that the US may invade Venezuela or try to assassinate him. He has called for Venezuelans to join a new civil reserve defense force, which, it is claimed, numbers two million members."
"During a recent commemoration of a revolutionary war battle, Mr Chavez called for preparation for an "asymmetric war" against the world's most powerful nation."
"If somebody meddles with Venezuela, they'll repent for 100 centuries," the President declared. "If we have to fight a war to defend this country, we'll make the blood flow."
If these developments weren't enough, Chavez, who already carries a strong relationship with Cuba's Fidel Castro, has become quite close with Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chavez has also come out in defense of Iran's nuclear program stating,
"Iran has every right, like many other countries have done, to develop its atomic energy and continue its research in this field"
This closeness between Chavez and Iran is particularly troubling given the militaristic stance of Chavez's presidency, his harsh rhetoric aimed at the U.S. and its leaders, and the state-fueled propaganda in Venezuela. Should Iran actually develop nuclear weapons, the interaction between Venezuela and Iran would have to be closely monitored to ensure that technology didn't also appear in South America.
I got an email today that really hit the heart of how greedy and selfish Americans are. I hunted down the original article the email quoted and traced it to a WorldNetDaily column from November 2006.
From the article:
"Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here."
Sounds like something I've said recently.
"I suggest this Thanksgiving we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy."
Further comments regarding the appropriations bill currently blasting its way through Congress:
Despite the mammoth size of the appropriations bill ($463.5 billion), our new Congressional leaders have designated a whopping 1 hour for debate regarding it. Hmm.... seems like they might be hiding something... oh yes, earmarks. But didn't we just make some kind of commitment regarding those?
One amendment would have eliminated an earmark for a tropical rain forest project in Iowa and transfer the $44.5 million in funding for that project to fund veterans healthcare. The Democrats, determining that rain forests in Iowa are of greater value than veterans, killed the amendment.
Earlier today (or yesterday as it were), President Bush delivered a "State of the Economy" speech in the same hall which George Washington took the oath of office in New York City. His speech has been long overdue in my book and the press has been irresponsibly silent about the truth of what's been happening with our economy.
Investor's Business Daily has a short yet astute look at what's happened with the economy in the last 7 years.
The media paints Bush's economy as something dismal and depressing; a reflection of his incompetency.
History however, will inevitably view the Bush economy as something quite the opposite.
Yesterday James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, gave an endorsement to President Bush's plan to surge more troops into Iraq.
"The president's plan ought to be given a chance," Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Just give it a chance."
The other chair of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton seems to back the President's plan as well:
"If we can put this together there is a chance we can reasonably succeed. But we realize that is a very, very daunting challenge," Hamilton said. "There isn't any doubt that in the president's proposals and in ours that we are depending on, very heavily, an improvement in the performance of the Iraqi government. Will it happen? I don't know. It does make you uneasy, when you have to put your dependence on this government. What other alternative do you have? You can't go out on the street of Baghdad and pick 10 people and put your confidence in them."
These comments certainly put another wrinkle in support for the Senate's non-binding resolution against a troop buildup in Iraq. That resolution, which was supposed to be debated this week has already had to be pushed to next week due to splintered support amongst Senators. A new version of the bill is scheduled to hit the floor for debate on Monday.
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) announced his candidacy for President on January 7. By January 30, his campaign had already turned negative. Amazing.
Here's Biden on Hillary:
“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”
“Are they going to turn to Hillary Clinton?"
"Everyone in the world knows her,” he said. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats? Where do you want to be? Do you want to be in a place where 100 percent of the Democrats know you? They’ve looked at you for the last three years. And four out of 10 is the max you can get?”
Biden on Obama:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”
And Biden saved particular fondness for John Edwards:
“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.
“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it—they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”
