See previous: 2007.04.25 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Today an American Army takes the field of battle while bleeding from a knife wound, having been stabbed deeply in the back by a Democrat Party that warms to terrorists in Syria and the broader Middle East.

-- Dan Riehl

The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form:

1. Predict failure
2. Do whatever it takes to make the prediction come true
3. Blame it on George Bush

What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they all four suffer the eternal fate they richly deserve.

We never did find out who Tokyo Rose was, but we know who Harry Reid is.

-- Bryan Preston

Below the fold:

• Petraeus: “No question” that Karbala attackers were linked to Quds Force
• Well, There You Go
• Cheney’s more popular than Reid
• Senate Passes Military Spending Bill Now Headed for Veto
• It’s time for Bush to fight — and use his veto power
• Senate passes Iraq spending bill
• Joe Lieberman Sends A Warning
• Today's Democrats: Championing Genocide
• The People Have Spoken!
• House Disregards Petraeus, Votes For Withdrawal
• The Mything Link
• Just Maybe, She Might Show Up
• Joe Lieberman: One Choice in Iraq
• Nutroots launch preemptive attack on...David Broder

*** ***

Newer items are added at the top. Please treat this post as a blog within a blog, come back often, and scroll down till you see something that was here on your last visit.

***

Petraeus: “No question” that Karbala
attackers were linked to Quds Force
Allahpundit

Remember the Karbala attack? Men dressed as American troops, speaking English and driving SUVs like the ones U.S. diplomats do, bypassed an Iraqi checkpoint in January and raided the governor’s office, killing one American soldier and kidnapping four more. All four were later found murdered, shot through the head. The theory was that it was a reprisal attack for the capture of the five Quds Force officers in Irbil by U.S. troops a few weeks earlier, and that it was carried out by a squad with unusually professional training — far beyond what the typical Shiite goon squad would be capable of.

Last month the military announced that it had busted a network led by Qais Khazali, a former Sadr spokesman who had allegedly become the leader of a breakaway wing of the Mahdi Army whose allegiance was to Iran. I wrote about Khazali and his network last month, theorizing that he and his boys must have been among those Shiites who are allegedly being trained in camps outside Tehran by the Revolutionary Guard for paramilitary operations against U.S. troops.  ...

***

Well, There You Go
Dan Riehl

That didn't take long: Liberal surrender-crats should be pleased.

By Ubaidah Al-Saif, Jihad Unspun | Arabic Source: Al-Fajr Media

The Islamic State of Iraq has issued a statement that speaks to the utter collapse of America’s so-called “new security plan” and the upheaval that is taking place in the US Congress over how to extract itself from the Iraqi quagmire.

In this address, the State makes clear that regardless of whatever new “plan” the occupiers come up with, be it additional forces, fortified bases or its latest tactic of separation walls, the Mujahideen remain charged for the battle, hungry for the fight and prepared for whatever it takes to expel the intruders from Islamic Iraq.

Here is their statement, published uncut and uncensored, as translated by JUS. ...

***

Cheney’s more popular than Reid
Don Surber

Senate Plurality Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said: “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration’s chief attack dog (VP Cheney). … I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.”

This just in: Cheney is more popular than Reid.

Reported the Wall Street Journal: “Among other individuals included in the poll, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) saw her approval rating fall to 30% in April from 38% in February, shortly after her swearing-in as the first female House speaker. Approval for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) slipped to 22%, from 23% in February but up from 19% a year ago.”

Cheney’s approval rate? 25% ....

***

Senate Passes Military Spending Bill Now Headed for Veto 
Lorie Byrd

Hot Air has a report with lots of updates. Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith crossed over to vote with Democrats. Joe Lieberman voted with Republicans.

Text of Joe Lieberman's speech is posted below.

Update: Iraq reacts to the vote.

BAGHDAD - An Iraqi government spokesman criticized the U.S. Senate vote to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by Oct. 1.

"We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press...

"Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over," al-Dabbagh said. "We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices."

Update II: ...

***

It’s time for Bush to fight — and use his veto power 
Examiner.com editorial (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

WASHINGTON - President Bush should go to Fort Bragg, gather around him the brave men and women serving in the U.S. military and stand with them as he vetoes the Iraq emergency supplemental funding bill congressional Democrats send him. Then he should challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to come to Bragg and explain to our troops why the Democratic leaders want to repeat the greatest mistake of the Vietnam War.

More than any other factor, the U.S. war effort in Southeast Asia was harmed by micromanaging politicians in Washington who continually subordinated common sense and military strategy to artificial timetables, public-relations spin and diplomatic initiatives. The communist tyrants of North Vietnam continually used these intervals to rearm, resupply and recoup their immense losses, while patiently waiting for the clearly superior U.S. military forces to be withdrawn under mounting domestic political pressure. It was thus almost anti-climatic when in 1975, Congress permanently ended U.S. military aid to South Vietnam, even as that sad nation’s last defenders were being mowed down by the victorious North Vietnamese forces.

A disturbingly familiar process is now shaping the U.S. war effort in Iraq, ...

***

Stupefying 
Greyhawk (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid:

[...]

Video here - you really need to see the man in action to fully appreciate this.

I'm reminded of an event from 2nd grade:

Teacher: Harry, why did you say that?
Harry: David said it too!
Teacher: No Harry, David did not say that .
Harry: Uh huh. Did so.
Teacher: I don't think..
Harry: We meant the same thing! Everybody hearded it!
Teacher: No, you didn't mean the same thing - but clearly you aren't listening to me. What if David says he didn't mean what you meant?
Harry: Then David is a big fat liar!

One more time, for the record - here's what people really said (in as short a form as I can make it - follow the link for the full grown up talk): ...

***

Senate passes Iraq spending bill 
Allahpundit. (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Just across on Fox News. On to the White House now for the promised veto, although that won’t come until next week. Standby for the roll; it’ll probably look almost exactly like this, the roll from the vote a few weeks ago in which the Senate passed its own version of the spending bill.

Update: Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on the Democrats’ “plan”:

Mr Zebari said the bill was “part of the politicking, basically, in Washington, and this has been damaging in fact to the security, political development, not only in Iraq, but in the entire region”.

He said a decision to withdraw US troops “should depend on conditions on the ground”.

“The moment that Iraqi forces, security, military, are self-reliant, capable of standing on their own, defending their own country, providing security, then definitely there would be a way for the troops to leave.”

Update: Lieberman’s speech before the vote is making the rounds right now. The money bit:

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it? ...

***

Joe Lieberman Sends A Warning
Ed Morrissey

Joe Lieberman delivered a speech today warning of the consequences that will arise from the passage of the troop-withdrawal bill that the House sent over to the Senate this morning. The Tank has the whole speech, and it should be read all of the way through, but here are a few highlights:

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be “policing a civil war,” that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all....

***

Today's Democrats: Championing Genocide
Confederate Yankee

Via Newsbusters, CNN's Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips blast Democrat plans to abandon Iraq (my bold):

...[Kiran] Chetry asked the pair "would all of us, all the American troops pulling out, help the situation?"

Phillips and Ware both loudly protested: "Oh, no! No. No way!"

Phillips zeroed in on the problems a U.S. withdrawal would cause for the Iraqis: "It would be a disaster. I mean, I had a chance to sit down with the Minister of Defense, to General Petraeus, to Admiral Fallon, head of CENTCOM. I asked them all the question whether Iraqi or U.S. military — there is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster. They're doing too much training, they’re helping the Iraqis not only with security, but trying to get the government up and running. I mean, this is a country of 'Let's Make a Deal,' there's so much corruption still. If the U.S. military left — they have rules of engagement, they have an idea, a focus. It would be a disaster."

Ware agreed, but argued that winning the war was in America's best interest: "Well, even more than that, if you just wanted to look at it purely in terms of American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you're giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush's 'Axis of Evil,' and al Qaeda. That's who will own it. And so, coming back now, I'm struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, how delusional it is. Whether you're for this war, or against it; whether you've supported the way it's been executed, or not; it doesn't matter. You've broke it, you've got to fix it now. You can't leave, or it's going to come and blow back on America."

The comments made by Ware and Phillips echo those of New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns in an interview with Matt Lauer on Today from March 30 (bold in original): ....

I was brought up believing that the United States was a champion for liberty and freedom around the world.

Today's Democrats obviously disagree, and instead, advocate a disasterous failed state, potential regional war, and possible genocide.  ...

See also:  Harry Reid: No Clement Vallandingham

***

The People Have Spoken!
Jules Crittenden

After 100-and-I-don’t-care-how-many days of pointless posturing, the House passes a meaningless surrender bill 218-208.  The mandate, the will of the American people and their enthusiasm for surrender, failure and genocide in Iraq, etc., expressed here turns out to be a margin of 10 votes, or about 2.3 percent of those voting.

The 110th Congress has been intensely interested in symbolism, as it seems to be incapable of acting in a substantive manner. The AP, much impressed by all this impotent posturing, breaks left of the New York Times to exult in the possibility that Bush’s veto could fall on 4th anniversary of his “Mission Accomplished!” speech.    

The AP’s failure to get what is at stake in Iraq and on Capitol Hill is helpfully pointed out by leftie blog ambitiously self-described as the Horse’s Mouth, which was shocked the other day that the New York Post would dare to rewrite a typically myopic and biased AP report on the surrender bill negotiations.

The AP’s David Espo strived mightily to make ”Lost” Harry Reid look heroically statesmanlike and the Dems reasonable, while burying the fact that his go-nowhere plan is, as WH flak Dana Perino put it, a “death sentence” for million of Iraqis … or would be if Reid and Pelosi actually had the power to make it happen.

AP’s “original” version*: ...

***

House Disregards Petraeus, Votes For Withdrawal
Ed Morrissey

The House rejected the message from General David Petraeus, the man the Senate sent just three months ago to command the American forces in Iraq, and voted for a supplemental spending bill that will require the start of an American withdrawal by October 1. It passed on the barest of majorities and has no hope of surviving a veto, but the Democrats insist that they will play this game of chicken all the way to its conclusion:

[...]

The Democrats want to send the bill to the White House on Monday, April 30th, one day before the fourth anniversary of his appearance on an aircraft carrier flying a banner that read, "Mission Accomplished". Never mind that the banner referred to the carrier group's mission; the Democrats want to use the bill to score a few more political points, on top of declaring defeat and funding some of their pet pork projects. They have even coordinated with outside groups to use the anniversary for television advertisements.

All that's missing is the ringmaster.

The President will likely oblige them by publicly vetoing the bill. The White House has already called on the Senate to rush the bill onto his desk for the purpose of casting the second deep-six of his presidency. Dana Perino, the president's acting press secretary, said that the nation needs to see how President Bush deals with this legislation, and they likely will get a chance to do that before the Democrats' political-action groups get much airplay from the commercials they have already made. ..

The same party leaders that scolded Bush during the election last year for listening to Donald Rumsfeld rather than his field commanders now won't even bother to attend a briefing with Petraeus before setting out on this course. They set the vote up in order to coordinate campaign commercials while declaring defeat from Capitol Hill. They have made themselves into a disgrace in less than four months in power, reminding the nation why they locked them out of power for the previous six years. ...

***

The Mything Link
Dafydd ab Hugh

So the Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in a snit, have subpoenaed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: They demand she some and testify about pre-Iraq war intelligence -- and about one element in particular:

Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms.

Ah, we come around once more, in the fullness of time, to arguing over President Bush's famous "sixteen words" from his 2003 State of the Union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

But in the meanwhile (since the last go-round) -- did I miss some huge revelation? Has the claim that Iraq "sought" yellowcake from Niger been "proven false?" Did I miss some great and powerful bombshell that was dropped subsequent to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report of July 7th, 2004?

Perhaps my memory fails, but I was under the distinct impression that that massive report on pre-war intelligence in fact found that those words were true -- not just literally (the Brits were reporting such), but in the deeper sense as well... that Iraq really had tried to obtain uranium from Africa. Oh yes, here is it... page 43 (page 8 on the pdf): ...

***

Just Maybe, She Might Show Up
John Hinderaker

Henry Waxman's Orwellian-named Oversight and Government Reform Committee served Condoleezza Rice with a subpoena today, to testify on "what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms."

Where to begin. Actually, as we've pointed out many times, the weight of the evidence is that Iraq did, in fact, try to buy uranium from Niger. Beyond that, what President Bush actually said in his State of the Union speech--the famous "sixteen words"--was indisputably true. And beyond that, who cares?

This is another instance of the Democrats' crazed attempt to govern by subpoena. They are determined to dredge up and re-fight every battle of the last six years; this, apparently, is what they think the voters elected them to do. I think they're wrong, and that most people have little interest in seeing these hoary arguments resurrected one last--we hope--time. It is hard to imagine a less productive use of Henry Waxman's time. Well, let me rephrase that; it's hard to imagine a less productive use of Rice's time, which is actually valuable.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of executive privilege, but I wouldn't think Rice will agree to testify. Maybe that's the Dems' plan. Still, it's hard not to wish that, just once, a representative of the Bush administration would stand up to the Democrat bullies and make some coherent points.

Like, in this case, ...

***

One Choice in Iraq
Joe Lieberman

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there. ...

The challenge before us is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

***

Nutroots launch preemptive attack on...David Broder
Michelle Malkin

Since "Important Action Alert" is trademarked by MyDD, a TPM blogger has issued a "BLOGSWARM ALERT!" rousing the nutroots over a column by diehard liberal David Broder that hasn't even appeared in print yet:

Blogswarm alert!

It looks as if David Broder's column tomorrow may be making the rather creative case that Harry Reid is as inept as...Alberto Gonzales.

How do I know this? Over at the Dallas Morning News, which prints Broder's column from time to time, they've done a teaser on the paper's blog previewing the Op-ed columns the paper is running tomorrow...Okay -- we should absolutely reserve judgment until we see what the man actually wrote, of course...

So, um, why the "BLOGSWARM ALERT!"? The preemptive rage bubbles and the frenzy has been whipped:

Yesterday Broder bashed Reid during a radio interview for saying the war is "lost," insisting that "about every six weeks or so there's another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case." Fine, Reid's line was clumsy and could have been more artfully done. But Broder's assertion that Reid has had to apologize "every six weeks" is flat-out false.

Will Broder repeat it? And if so, when do we get to stop calling him the "Dean" and start calling him inept?

If the comments at the TPM blog are any indication, the Washington Post is in for another nutroots avalanche: ...

Click here to read the Broder piece in question.