The speech Bush should give
Murdoc

If Murdoc had his way, once the emergency spending bill was sent on to the White House, President Bush would give a speech explaining why he was going to veto it. And it would go something like this:

My fellow Americans,

I hope you won't mind if I ask for a few minutes of your evening to discuss with you a matter of national importance.

Earlier this week, the emergency spending bill was sent up from Congress for my approval. After carefully reviewing the bill, discussing it with senior military and administration leaders, and exploring alternatives, I am officially announcing that I will veto this bill tomorrow morning.

Now, I have only vetoed a single bill that has made it to my desk since I took office in 2001. And I don't veto this one lightly. Congressional Representatives and Senators are elected to their offices by the people of the United States, and the people of the United States are the ones who ultimately run the American government.

But this bill, originally written to fund the efforts of our military overseas and at home in the War on Terror, includes a requirement for a deadline to withdraw American forces from Iraq. And that requirement is simply unacceptable.

Withdrawal from Iraq before that nation is fully prepared to provide for its own security and stability, particularly a requirement to withdraw by an artificial deadline sometime next year, would be devastating for our troops, for our military, and for our nation.

Many commentators and pundits are fond of comparing the situation in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. While some of these comparisons are valid, many of them simply do not hold water. But if playing Vietnam games is what gets everyone's attention, I've got a Vietnam analogy for you:  ...

In case you didn't stop by yesterday:

• 2007.04.02 Iraq/Surrendercrat Roundup
  • Iraq: A pessimistic assessment
  • Red on red mania: Sunni insurgents kill two Al Qaeda capos
  • A heckler, not a reporter
  • "Michael Ware Needs To Come Home"
  • Video: CNN reporter denies heckling McCain;
    Update: Press conference video appears to support Ware
  • Video: Rangel admits Dems abused war funding bill

***

Never trust a Democrat 
Don Surber

“Now he’s the commander in chief, and we’re not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that. I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need.” — Harry Reide, leader of the Senate Democrats, Nov. 28, 2006.

Everything, huh?

AP’s Anne Flaherty reported tonight:

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement. ...

Once again, Democrats voted to send troops only to want to cut off their funding later.

***

The Newsman More Terrorists Trust
Jules Crittenden

Turns out, contrary to Drudge, CNN’s Michael Ware didn’t heckle McCain.  He made his snide remarks later, when McCain wasn’t around.  There’s nothing to indicate Ware attempted “to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibes (Merriam-Webster).” So the heckling charge is retracted.  Iraq, like the United States, is (now) a free country.  I’d be out of business and so would a lot of other people if we couldn’t mock our pols.  Michael Ware has long made it clear where he stands, and I appreciate that.

That leaves us with my reference to the “pro-al-Qaeda press.” I’m sure this jackass, consort of terrorists, does not consider himself to be ostensibly pro-al-Qaeda. Though based on the kind of remarks I’ve heard him make in interviews over the past four years, he is so virulently anti-American and pro … “resistance fighter” … that the distinction is lost. 

Here’s a brief report on several months he spent in 2003 with “resistance fighters” who wanted “foreign occupiers off their soil.”

Here he is on ...

***

Harry "Land Shark" Reid Empowers Our Enemies 
Dan Riehl

Given Harry Land Shark Reid's own statements, he's prepared to sell out our troops for perceived political gain by sponsoring a bill with the leading anti-American Senator Russ Feingold:

Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

Here is the corrupt politician from Nevada's very own words:

Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, now-Majority Leader Harry Reid said this:

"As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that." ...

***

Video: U.S. troops rescue kidnapped Iraqi man
Allahpundit

Made me think of Pam Hess, who wrote an article a few weeks ago about the sentiments she expressed in that now-famous video clip. Quote: “It is a struggle to protect innocent people from absolute evil.”

***

Reid Wants To Play Chicken A Little Longer
Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama assured America that the Democrats would fund the troops in Iraq if the White House vetoed the current supplemental two days ago. Speaking with the AP in Iowa, he said that the Democrats would not "play chicken" with the troops and would drop the mandatory timetables in the next supplemental. Apparently Obama forgot to tell Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about this strategy, because he announced that a veto would bring a defunding bill to the floor:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid yesterday endorsed the Senate's toughest antiwar bill yet, a bid to cut off funding within a year, sending a clear signal to President Bush that the Iraq debate will continue in Congress regardless of whether he carries through on his veto threats.

Reid (Nev.) announced that he had teamed up with Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), one of the Democrats' strongest war critics, on legislation to set a deadline of March 31, 2008, for completing the withdrawal of combat forces and ending most military spending in Iraq. ...

Not only did Reid backtrack against Obama's statement, he backtracked against his own. On November 30th, just after the Democrats took control of Congress, he also assured Americans that the Democrats would not defund the troops in the middle of a war. He said this: "We're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds." That sounded categorical at the time, and yet three months after taking the reins, Reid and the Democrats have started to threaten what they insisted they would not do.

At least this threat falls within their Constitutional authority. Their previous efforts have all encroached on the President's authority to command the troops, setting up a 535-member committee as a replacement for the Commander-in-Chief. The Democrats have been loath to use this tool, however, for two reasons. One, it is unprecedented for Congress to abort funding while American troops remain engaged with an enemy. And two, it makes Democrats responsible for the results of such an unprecedented surrender -- and there is no other military term for a withdrawal from a theater in which an army is engaged with an enemy.

This almost certainly amounts to a big bluff on Reid's part. ...

***

Some honest coverage of Iraq 
Michelle Malkin

No taunts. No snorts. No whitewashing. No candycoating. No drunken snark. Just the facts from Marine-turned-journalist/author W. Thomas Smith, Jr., who's blogging from Baghdad over at The Tank. Here's a bit of his dispatch from yesterday. Keep scrolling for more:

BAGHDAD (3:34 am EDT — 11:34 pm Iraq Time): There's a lot of air activity over Baghdad tonight, with a full moon, a few clouds, and lots of stars.

Those in my villa who have been here for awhile are commenting about there being "more aircraft than usual." It's certainly the most I've seen since I've been here. ...

And here's his latest today on the good and the bad:

BAGHDAD (12:34 am EDT — 8:34 am Iraq Time) As I mentioned Sunday, there is much going on here — good and bad — that is not being reported.  ...

***

Morons Triumphant!
Jules Crittenden

No fair for morons to stroll with security! NYT goes for a stroll in McCain’s bazaar … emerges strangely unscathed and loaded up with great bargains! The discerning shopper, no moron, demands to see some of the old pre-surge stock:

Shorja, the city’s oldest and largest market, set in a sprawling labyrinth of narrow streets and alleyways, has been bombed at least a half-dozen times since last summer.

The dsicerning shopper casts a critical eye on the workmanship:

… But those measures, while making the markets safer, have not made them safe.

Because safer will never be safe enough!  But let’s go straight to these bargain basement condemnations: ...

***

AFP: “One reporter giggled at the back” during McCain press conference
Allahpundit

Anyone know any reporters who were seated in the back during McCain’s press conference?

Big score here for Bob Owens and a bigger score for Drudge if it pans out. FYI, the line quoted by AFP that allegedly elicited the giggling was “I studied warfare. I’m a student of history. If you control the capital city of a nation you have a significant advantage.” You can see McCain deliver that line in the second video hosted at Raw Story starting at around 3:30. There’s no audible giggling and he doesn’t appear distracted — but at 4:07, right after he says “But the American people are not getting the full picture,” there is some noise off camera.

Drudge Might Have Been Right
Bob "Confederate Yankee" Owens

If this is accurate, will I have to issue an apology for my apology now?

I only ask because I just stumbled across an account from an AFP journalist at the John McCain press conference in Baghdad, confirming that a reporter was giggling during the press conference:

"I studied warfare. I'm a student of history. If you control the capital city of a nation you have a significant advantage," countered McCain as one reporter giggled at the back.

Considering how this same article describes how the "slightly incredulous" journalists who covered the press conference "openly scoffed afterwards," it doesn't seem that far-fetched that someone in the press corps might have taken the opportunity to slip in a mocking comment in a stage whisper, just loud enough for fellow journalists to hear it, but not loud enough to be picked up by microphones directed at McCain.

If the press conference official that leaked to Drudge was standing behind the last row of reporters as I've seen them do in the past, he might have been in a position to hear someone quietly mocking McCain's comments, even if those comments were perhaps meant from private consumption. ...

***

Bush: Congress Spending Time 'Undercutting Our Troops' in Iraq

WASHINGTON —  President Bush called on Congress Tuesday to stop stalling and approve funding for the war in Iraq instead of debating differences "at the expense of our troops."

"Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops," Bush said from the White House Rose Garden.

The president defended his demands that Congress approve war funding with no timetable to withdraw combat troops from Iraq. Bush repeated his promise to veto legislation that includes a withdrawal timetable.

"I think the voters in America want our Congress to support our troops in harm's way. They want money to the troops and they don't want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight the war," Bush said.

***

LA Times: Mahdi Army melting down
Allahpundit

Mmmmm yeah. All according to plan, per what Roggio’s been saying for months.

Seven weeks into the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad, leaders of the Al Mahdi militia of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr acknowledge that their fighters are chafing under orders to freeze operations, and worry they could lose control of the sprawling organization.

Some members have defected to armed groups that have no intention of calling a cease-fire. Commanders have gone underground, leaving a leadership void as U.S. forces arrest members in raids. Some commanders have fled to Iran and others to southern Iraq. Rumors abound about the location of Sadr.

Senior leaders of Sadr’s movement also worry openly that Iran has started to recruit Al Mahdi fighters to possibly confront U.S. forces in Iraq.

Yeah, we know all about that at this point, don’t we? JAM sources tells the Times that Sadr’s been purging his ranks since October, but that it hasn’t stopped the defections to the “rogue,” Iranian-backed wing of the Mahdi Army so far. In which case, why doesn’t Sadr play ball with Iran and offer his services as a Nasrallah-type proxy? Iran probably wants his brand name more than they want him, but they can’t be thrilled by the prospect of having their own foot soldiers targeted by fighters still loyal to Muqtada when they’re trying to establish hegemony. Much easier to coopt him and use him as a figurehead. Sadr is allegedly a true Iraqi nationalist, though, so that may be the stumbling block. Here’s another puzzle: if Iran really is trying to steal his militia out from under him, what on earth is Sadr doing hiding out in Iran? Shouldn’t he be nervous that they’re going to bump him off to decapitate the Sadrist movement, which could then be reoriented towards Tehran with promises of money and materiel? It’s like the leader of the Gambino family hiding out in Genovese territory. Either he’s not in Iran at all or he must be in cahoots with them and knows he has nothing to fear by being there. No other explanation makes sense.

This is interesting/promising, too: ...