See previous: 2007.05.01 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Below the fold:

• No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn
• Debutantes of Defeat
• House Fails to Override Bush Veto of Iraq War Spending Bill
• Even A Liberal Notices: Democrats Are
  "Illiterate" And Willfully, Cynically Blind About Iraq
• The mask slips in Palestine
• Now What?
• Freed UK sailors back in the Persian Gulf
• If It’s Not Lost, How Can We Win?
• If Entering Iraq Was a Mistake, Leaving Is Worse
• Bush Keeps Vow to Veto War Funding Bill
• The 'new' Democrats and the war
• They Are Not Serious. They Are Not Patriotic.

***

Another Grunt’s Rant on Iraq
Jules Crittenden

George Bush vetoed the surrender bill with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, killed in Anbar May 8, 2005. Robert Derga wanted him to use the pen to veto that bill, and called to make sure he was going to do it.

Larry Gwin, former XO of 2/7 Cav, veteran of the Ia Drang battles of 1965 and author of “Baptism, A Vietnam Memoir,” is very familiar with death in war. He has not been a great fan of this war but has stated all along that once troops are committed, the nation must be behind them to the end. He circulated the following among some friends the other day and said I could run it. The Democratic-controlled Congress is giving Gwin a flashback. I’m guessing he’s not the only one:   

Another Grunt’s Rant on Iraq

Am I wrong, or am I wrong?  It looks like there’s going to be a Constitutional crisis on the war in Iraq –  a showdown between Congress and the President. Congress has voted to tie military funding to a timetable for withdrawal, and the President has vowed to veto their bill.  That will put the burden back on Congress to reconsider legislation that will fund the war, i.e. support the troops, and if they refuse, the Defense Department’s budget is going to take a hit.

The Democrats insist that what they’re doing is obeying the will of the people, as demonstrated by the November elections that gave them a majority in both houses.  What a crock that is!  There never was any referendum on the war– just a straight election for representatives in the House and Senate, some of whom supported the war, and some of whom didn’t.  It seems to me that the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, now think they can ram a surrender down our throats in the name of the people, even though there has never been a specific referendum on making a stand or withdrawing in Iraq.  So, who is right?

We’ll see. ...

What the Democrats are doing is akin to what we did in Vietnam by signing a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese, tantamount to bailing out on our allies’ without their concurrence, then departing with absolutely no intention of ever coming back, no matter what the North Vietnamese did. Congress also cut off financial support for South Vietnam after our departure.  And sure as hell, as soon as we left, the North Vietnamese attacked south in full force, and for two more years, the two sides pounded each other until the more determined North, supported by Russia and China, won the war.  And we veterans here at home who had fought and seen so many of our buddies die over there, had to keep our mouths shut and just take it.

And we felt the shame of defeat.  Not a defeat we’d suffered, but a defeat of our national will.  And that enraged me and made me feel ashamed.  It took me more than forty years to get over it, and I still simmer when I think about it.

And we’re going to do it again, thanks to the Democrats in Congress. ...

Read the whole thing and don't forget to follow the links to learn more about the gentleman who wrote it.

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

(I've moved an item that I originally posted here to my 5/3 roundup.)

Debutantes of Defeat
Contributed by Russ Vaughn

In 2003 they came to the Ball,
For some merry martial dancing;
Girlishly giggling in the Capitol hall,
Finding chords of war music entrancing.
Filled with excitement, throwing care to the wind,
DebiDems wanted Bush to be tough,
So the ladies signed on for a Ball with no end,
Without thinking it just might get rough. ...

***

House Fails to Override Bush Veto of Iraq War Spending Bill 

WASHINGTON —  The Democratic-controlled House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of an Iraqi war spending bill with timetables for troop withdrawals. Lawmakers went directly to the White House to talk about a new version.

"Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences," Bush said. "Today is the day where we can work together to find common ground."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on either side of the president. The Democratic leaders were stone-faced as Bush made his brief statement. The White House meeting started late, apparently delayed by the failed override attempt.

"I'm confident we can reach agreement," Bush said.

The 222-203 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto override, occurred just ahead of a White House meeting that Bush called to begin compromise talks with congressional leaders of both parties on new legislation to finance the war, now in its fifth year.

Voting to override Bush's veto were 220 Democrats and two Republicans. Voting to sustain the veto were 196 Republicans and seven Democrats. ...

***

Even A Liberal Notices: Democrats Are
"Illiterate" And Willfully, Cynically Blind About Iraq
Ace of Spades

... Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. But, when Nancy Pelosi confessed last year that she felt "sad" about President Bush's claims that Al Qaeda operates in Iraq, she seemed to be disputing what every American soldier in Iraq, every Al Qaeda operative, and anyone who reads a newspaper already knew to be true. (When I questioned him about Pelosi's assertion, a U.S. officer in Ramadi responded, incredulously, that Al Qaeda had just held a parade in his sector.) Perhaps the House speaker was alluding to the discredited claim that Al Qaeda operated in Iraq before the war. Perhaps. But the insinuation that Al Qaeda's depredations in Iraq might be something other than what they appear to be has become a staple of the congressional debate over Iraq. Thus, to buttress his own case for withdrawal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "We have to change course [away from Iraq] and turn our attention back to the war on Al Qaeda and their allies"--the clear message being that neither plays much of a role there.

What is going on here? There are two possibilities: First, Reid and Pelosi could be purposefully minimizing the stakes in Iraq. Or, second, they don't know what they're talking about. My guess is some combination of the two. Political maneuvering certainly contributes to the everyday pollution of Iraq discourse. But a lot of the pollution derives from legislators being functionally illiterate about the war over which Congress now intends to preside....

***

The mask slips in Palestine
By TigerHawk (H/T: Jules C.)

I missed this story the first time around, but it has longer shelf life than most news these days. And besides, we should all know what our enemies say when they think we aren't paying attention.

The "Nancy Pelosi" of the Palestinian Arabs had this to say Friday before last:

Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One."

The United States has given the Palestinian Authority more than a billion dollars in aid since 1993. We are the only country on Earth that sends massive amounts of aid to governments whose elected leaders then bend over backwards to insult us or, in the case of the Palestinians, call for our annihilation. Presumably, we only gave this money to the Palestinians to suck up to Muslims with oil and mollify European politicians and American transnational progressives. Even so, it's pretty damned degrading. ...

***

Now What?
Ed Morrissey

With George Bush delivering only the second veto of his presidency, the question of funding the mission in Iraq became even more acute. Eighty-six days after the start of the 110th Congress, the military still has not received funding for operations in Iraq this year, and the process has to start from Square One while the Pentagon has to start juggling the books:

[...]

At some point, a compromise has to be reached -- but it cannot take the form of mandated timetables for withdrawal. The British did that in Basra, and the result has been the formation of militias and internecine fighting in a region homogenous to Shi'ites. Imagine what would happen in the melting pot of Baghdad, let alone the al-Qaeda theater of operations in Baghdad. Announcing withdrawal dates only emboldens those who oppose the democratically-elected government of Iraq and encourages the rest to choose the least-egregious warlord to obey.

***

Freed UK sailors back in the Persian Gulf
Bryan Preston

Because, you know, it worked so well the last time.

Seven of the 15 British Royal Navy personnel held captive by Iran are back in the Persian Gulf searching for smugglers, Britain’s military said Tuesday.

The seven returned to duty on the frigate HMS Cornwall, the Defense Ministry said. Another seven of the Royal Marines have returned to duty at a naval base in Scotland. No decision has been made on whether to send those marines back to the Persian Gulf, the Defense Ministry said.

The seven sailors back in the Gulf include the group’s only woman, Leading Seaman Faye Turney. They are again working in small boats boarding ships in Iraqi waters to check for contraband goods, the ministry said. It was during one such operation that the sailors and marines were captured by naval forces of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on March 23.

The Littlest Sailor isn’t among his mates in the Gulf. ...

***

If It’s Not Lost, How Can We Win?
War buzz from Lt. Col. Patterson

Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson is author of the upcoming book War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Crown Forum, June). As the president prepares to veto Congress’s timetabled war-funding bill, Lt. Col. Patterson took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez about the Democratic congressional majority, war reporting, and more.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation “cannot survive treason from within.” Surely you’re not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

“Buzz” Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as “adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as “cold blooded killers” before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield. These are behaviors that give aid and comfort to our enemy.

It’s not just the Democrats though but many on the Left — its faculties and administrations on college campuses, big media, Hollywood, and left-wing organizations such as the Ford Foundation, Moveon.org, United for Peace and Justice, etc. What is particularly disturbing to me is that these Americans are doing it while their fellow citizens are fighting and dying in combat. The best ally that al Qaeda has these days is the Democrat Party leadership. It’s reprehensible.

Lopez: Is it fair even to say “The Left has declared war on the U.S. military and the global War on Terror”? ...

***

If Entering Iraq Was a Mistake, Leaving Is Worse
By Dennis Prager

In arriving at their decision that America should withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Democratic Party and the Left around the world regularly make reference to what they regard as America's initial error -- invading Iraq.

Perhaps the Left is correct in its contentions that bringing freedom to a Muslim Arab country at this time in history is impossible and that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein would be better for American and world security.

But even if the war was a major blunder and even if everything the Left charges -- including "Bush lied" -- were true, none of these contentions has any bearing on the question of what should be done now.

The preoccupation of the Left with the alleged wrongness of the war and the alleged deceit of President Bush is another example of passion rather than reason determining a leftist position on a major issue.

A responsible, rational opponent of the war in Iraq and of George W. Bush would say, "I am appalled by the disastrous war in Iraq, appalled by the wasted American lives, appalled by the moral wasteland of Iraq, and I loathe this president. But we are in Iraq. And as much as I loathe supporting anything this president does and as much as I oppose this war, I know what is likely to happen if we leave Iraq. So I cannot in good conscience advocate an American withdrawal or fixing a specific date to do so." ...

***

Bush Keeps Vow to Veto War Funding Bill

President Says Pullout Deadline Is 'Date for Failure'
By Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush vetoed a $124 billion measure yesterday that would have funded overseas military operations but required him to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as early as July, escalating the most serious confrontation between the White House and Congress over war policy in a generation.

Bush carried through on his veto threat just after the legislation arrived at the White House, calling the timetable a "prescription for chaos and confusion" that would undercut generals. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," he said last night. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure." ...

***

The 'new' Democrats and the war

With President Bush meeting today with congressional leaders on the war-funding bill, the administration continues to be hammered by Democrats who are never at a loss for words when it comes to professing their admiration for our troops or browbeating the Iraqis to "do more" to defend their own country. But these talking points from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bear little resemblance to the actual behavior of House and Senate Democrats, who have undercut the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to carry out their missions. ...

***

I Question
They Are Not Serious. They Are Not Patriotic.
By Erick (at Redstate)

I question the seriousness of the Democratic Party. They have been so intent to cut off funding to the troops in Iraq, they passed the bill and then held it for a week so Nancy Pelosi could read it. Or was that to print it on parchment. Their unserious excuses have been all over the map for the past week.

Witness the seriousness of the President who vetoed the bill upon receipt versus the unseriousness of the Congressional Democrats who wanted to time the delivery to the anniversary of President Bush's speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, only to deny that today and tell NPR that the timing was a "coincidence." ...

I question the Democrats' seriousness. I question the Democrats' patriotism too. ...

The Democrats say they support the troops, but they have consistently sought since 2002, to undermine the efforts of the troops, the military leadership, the cause, and protective measures the Bush Administration has implemented to keep this nation safe -- from terrorist surveillance to unionization of the Department of Homeland Security to the Patriot Act.

You're damn right I question their patriotism. ...