Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit.

• New Cabinet Level Departments Contemplated By Dems
• Denying 'Hot Pursuit' In Waziristan
• Cheney: Dems will blink
• Support is More Than Words
• Dawn’s Early Light …
• "No Plan B" for a reason
• Report: Thousands of Iraqi Shiites training for war in Iranian camp
• Sunni Factions Split With Al-Qaeda Group
• Good news: Whole damned Middle East set to go nuclear
• Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power

***

New Cabinet Level Departments Contemplated By Dems
Rick Moran

In keeping with their party motto “The only good government is the biggest damn government we can shove down people’s throats,” the Democrats are seriously contemplating saddling future Presidents with a “Department of Peace and Nonviolence.”

I’m not sure whether to laugh at the stupidity, weep at the shameless pandering, or tear my hair out thinking about what our enemies might make of such an idiotic idea.

When one considers that the third cabinet level executive department created by the very first Congress meeting in 1789 was the War Department, the possibilities for ironic juxtaposition are staggering. But leaving aside the latent historical analogies, other questions might be raised about the efficacy of creating an executive department that the executive not only hasn’t asked for but would almost certainly conflict with the operations of other executive level departments.

What in the name of all that is good and holy would a President do with such a department? It sounds wonderful – peace, love, sit-ins, smoking joints the size of a Cuban Habano, while playing slap and tickle with the hippie chick sitting next to you in the dark. But as a practical matter, don’t we already have such a department? What do all those people going to work every day at Foggy Bottom do for a living? Isn’t it their job already to promote peace and find non violent ways to resolve crisis?

Ooops! My bad. For the Dems, the first rule of good government is “Why have one Department when you can have two doing exactly the same thing at twice the cost?” ...

And while we’re at it, might I suggest a few other executive level departments the Dems might want to contemplate adding: ...

***

Denying 'Hot Pursuit' In Waziristan
Ed Morrissey

Pervez Musharraf has unequivocally stated that Pakistan will not allow US forces to operate in Pakistani territory, not in joint patrols or for any other reason. This conflicts with the more blunt assertion from the US, which noted that American forces will follow retreating Taliban and al-Qaeda forces across the Afghanistan border in "hot pursuit" cases (via TMV):

President General Pervez Musharraf has rejected "absolutely and totally" the prospect of a joint US-Pakistan military operation to pursue retreating insurgents inside Pakistan.

"The whole population of Pakistan will rise against it," he told CBS news channel in an interview.

Musharraf hit out at his Afghan counterpart, saying he was "very angry" at criticism of Pakistani progress in fighting cross-border terrorism.

Karzai's reasons for anger at Musharraf seem readily apparent; he wants Pakistan to do more in fighting the terrorists that hide in Pakistan and attack in Afghanistan. Musharraf's anger comes from an accusation that Mullah Omar hides in Pakistan, presumably with the cooperation of Pakistan's intel service, the ISI. While everyone believes that Omar and Osama bin Laden have taken refuge in Pakistan's mountainous border region, the accusation that Pakistan is actively assisting them has less foundation, at least in evidence.

However, the story here is that Musharraf has pushed back against the Bush administration on hot pursuit. ...

***

Cheney: Dems will blink
Don Surber

As Nancy Pelosi celebrates her first 100 days as House speaker, Vice President Cheney pointed out it has been all for naught.

The Dems accomplished nothing.

Cheney ain’t gloating. No brag, just facts. Because my employer is a member of the AP, here is the Associated Press report by Ben Feller in full:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney says he is “willing to bet” that Democratic lawmakers will back down and approve a war-spending bill that doesn’t call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Top Democratic leaders shot back that Cheney has lost all public credibility. With President Bush and Congress in a stalemate — he plans to veto legislation that orders U.S. troops home, which the House and Senate plan to send him — both sides are looking ahead. In an interview broadcast Sunday, Cheney predicted the Democrats will blink.

He said Congress will end up passing a “clean” bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any troop withdrawal timetables. Democrats control Congress, but they do not appear to have the votes to override a presidential veto.

“They will not leave the troops in the field without the resources they need,” Cheney said of the Democrats.

Asked what would happen if they don’t back down, Cheney said: “I’m willing to bet the other way — that, in fact, they will.” ...

So the Democrats will blink. They will back down on the timetable. This whole timetable bit was an exercise in futility. The Democratic eqivalent of Terry Schiavo? Perhaps.

Congressional Democrats no longer work for the people or even their party. They work for a small select group of George Soros liberals. In many ways, Americans have traded in groups of extremists running Congress, except this groups is far less tolerant. ...

***

Support is More Than Words 
Kit Jarrell (H/T: Michelle)

For many Americans, “supporting the troops” is an abstract concept, a broad statement referring to a vague obligation that is easily fulfilled with a $2.99 magnetic ribbon from the corner gas station. Slap it on the back of your vehicle, and you’re an official troop supporter—whatever that is, and minus the decoder ring. It doesn’t require any kind of real commitment, no debate skills, no standing up and taking fire from your liberal neighbors. Above all, it doesn’t require you to see or hear anything that might disturb the relatively pleasant rat race that is life in America: going to the mall, talking on your cell phone while impatiently waiting for the light to change, or grilling steaks and hoisting a beer with friends.

This is not support.

A select few Americans truly understand what “supporting the troops” means—and most of them have paid for it themselves in some form or another. Behind the bumper stickers and patriotic shirts, past taking off your hat at the start of a baseball game or going to the Memorial Day parade, there is an ethos, a mentality, a code of conduct. Supporting the troops means understanding the incredible gift you were given, the beautiful ideal that was offered you on the flag-draped casket of a man who you will never meet—who chose to die for you.

It is more than complaining to the television during the news—it is holding your legislators responsible for foolish decisions and laws that tie the hands of the troops and cost lives.

It is more than parroting the words “Thanks for your service” to a veteran while trying not to look at the place where his arm or leg once was.

It is more than words. It is a way of life. ...

***

Jules Crittenden: Dawn’s Early Light …

[Just read the whole thing and follow the links.]

***

"No Plan B" for a reason

McCain Sees ‘No Plan B’ for Iraq War
By Micheal R. Gordon and Adam Nagourney

WASHINGTON, April 13 — Senator John McCain said that the buildup of American forces in Iraq represented the only viable option to avoid failure in Iraq and that he had yet to identify an effective fallback if the current strategy failed.

“I have no Plan B,” Mr. McCain said in an interview. “If I saw that doomsday scenario evolving, then I would try to come up with one. But I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now.”

In a discussion of how he would handle Iraq if elected president, Mr. McCain said that the success of the Bush administration’s strategy, which seeks to protect Baghdad residents so Iraqi political leaders have an opportunity to pursue a program of political reconciliation, was essentially a precondition for a more limited American role that could follow.

“I am not guaranteeing that this succeeds,” said Mr. McCain, who has long argued that additional troops are needed. “I am just saying that I think it can. I believe it has a good shot.”

Dawn’s Early Light …
Jules Crittenden

… is blinding over at NYT:

McCain: No Plan B in Iraq.  NYT … like Obama, Dodd and Edwards, still reeling from McCain’s “We Will Fight Them on the Beaches” speech last week … has a sitdown with him, and in this article allows him to deconstruct the “plans” of the opposition.  The best NYT can do to try to undercut him is ”no Plan B.”  Because, McCain notes, the current plan is working … according to plan … and when we come up with a better idea, we’ll do that, too.  You can always surrender later. Most remarkable thing about McCain’s speech is how a little unflinching fortitude puts such a twist in the shorts of the withdrawal fans. Hard truth the new political gold standard? McCain on a badly wounded Seal he visited:

“Grabs my hand and says, ‘I’m honored you’re here. Thanks for your support. We can win this fight.’ You know, I’m supposed to worry about my political future?”

***

Report: Thousands of Iraqi Shiites training for war in Iranian camp
Allahpundit

Not the first time we’ve heard this.

“This is a new plan now for the Mahdi Army, it is part of a new strategy,” he said. “We know we are against a strong enemy and we must learn proper methods and techniques.”…

Abu Rafed [a Mahdi Army veteran] estimated a total of almost 4,000 Iraqi Shias, including “many important Mahdi Army leaders”, had received training there last month alone, living at the camp for weeks at a time. He said the number of Iraqi Shias arriving there had increased significantly since the start of the “surge” in February…

Abu Amer said: “The training was done by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. I saw Iraqi fighters from Missan, Basra, Diwaniyah and Nasiriyah [areas of southern Iraq]. They were mainly Mahdi Army, but not all of them.” More Iraqi Shias had sought military instruction, he added, after the 2006 bombing of the Samarra shrine, the event widely blamed for triggering widespread sectarian war between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shias. ...

According to the two JAM sources, the training emphasizes use of explosives and attacks on helicopters as “preparation for the time when we will have a big battle with the occupiers.” That time might be getting close: one of the Sadrist MPs promised today that they’re going to pull out of Maliki’s coalition soon if he doesn’t turn on the Americans, which presumably means the JAM will be back on the streets in force shortly thereafter. Al Qaeda’s trying to draw them out, too, setting off a car bomb today at a bus station 600 feet away from one of the Shiite shrines in Karbala. If they manage to hit one of them, or one of the shrines in Najaf — and given the emphasis lately on high-profile attacks, including another bomb on a bridge today, they must be trying — Sadr will have to take the gloves off. ...

***

Sunni Factions Split With Al-Qaeda Group
Rift Further Blurs Battle Lines in Iraq
By Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post Foreign Service

BAGHDAD, April 13 -- Key Sunni militant groups are severing their association with al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that claims allegiance to the organization led by Osama bin Laden. The split could help isolate a primary foe of the United States in Iraq but could also further splinter the Sunni insurgency and make it even harder to control, according to insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

In the Sunni heartland of Anbar and other provinces, Sunni groups are accusing al-Qaeda in Iraq of killing, kidnapping and torturing dozens of their fighters, clerics and followers. One leading Sunni extremist organization, the Islamic Army, says al-Qaeda has killed more than 30 fighters from different armed factions in recent weeks.

Last weekend, the Islamic Army posted on insurgent Web sites a nine-page letter urging bin Laden to stop those killing in his name. "He should rise up for his faith and assume religious and organizational responsibility for al-Qaeda and search for the truth," the letter said. "It is not enough to disown those actions, but it is imperative to correct the path."

The Sunni insurgency in Iraq has long been fractious, in part because secular nationalists, tribal leaders and former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and army have rejected al-Qaeda's tactics, particularly beheadings. But the emerging rift represents the Sunni groups' most decisive effort since the 2003 invasion to distance themselves from al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"They have realized that those people are not working for Iraq's interests," said Alaa Makki, a Sunni member of parliament with close ties to the insurgents. "They realized that their operations might destroy Iraq altogether." ...

***

Good news: Whole damned Middle East set to go nuclear
Allahpundit

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, and the UAE. Almost the entire Sunni Arab world, all of them now interested in nuclear “power,” all of them likely to get their fix from the same Russian and Pakistani dealers that Iran’s buying from, all to deter the erratic hardline Revolutionary Guard nuclear power complex in ascendance in Tehran under Ahmadinejad, all because the UN can’t or won’t do anything to stop the mullahs beyond wrist-slap sanctions dictated by China and that Russian dealer. Money:

“We will develop [our nuclear energy program] openly,” Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said of the council’s effort. “We want no bombs. All we want is a whole Middle East that is free from weapons of mass destruction,” an Arab reference to both Israel’s and Iran’s nuclear programs.

Deterrence through peaceful nuclear “energy.” Try parsing that logic. ...

***

Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power 

Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors.

So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East.

“The rules have changed,” King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Everybody’s going for nuclear programs.”

The Middle East states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But United States government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran.

By nature, the underlying technologies of nuclear power can make electricity or, with more effort, warheads, as nations have demonstrated over the decades by turning ostensibly civilian programs into sources of bomb fuel. Iran’s uneasy neighbors, analysts say, may be positioning themselves to do the same.

“One danger of Iran going nuclear has always been that it might provoke others,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London. “So when you see the development of nuclear power elsewhere in the region, it’s a cause for some concern.”

Some analysts ask why Arab states in the Persian Gulf, which hold nearly half the world’s oil reserves, would want to shoulder the high costs and obligations of a temperamental form of energy. ...

***

***

Yesterday's roundup:

• 2007.04.14 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
  • Bush: Democrats Offer Enemies a Victory
  • What Happened To 'Follow The Money'?
  • Good News Bad News
  • AP Quantizes Counterinsurgency Success
  • AP tally: Civilian deaths in Baghdad down 45% since February
  • IRAQ: Mentally handicapped children used in attacks
  • Condi to Bush: Release the Irbil Five; Bush to Condi: No
  • Muslim Brotherhood Says They Weren't Invited