See previous: 2007.05.02 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

I remember exactly where I was when I heard Kennedy had been shot, when I heard Elvis was gone, when I heard Challenger had exploded, and when I first saw that “Last Helicopter” picture on the front of The Daily Texan. The other incidents left me sad; the Helicopter picture left me mad as Hell. Our Iraq vets deserve better (but then, so did we.) No soldier deserves to come back from a war to be told "Oh, never mind, it wasn't important. Thanks for your time anyway. Sorry your friends died for nothing." No Gold Star parent needs to be told "Never mind. It wasn't important to begin with. Sorry about that." At least Charlie didn't follow us home; the jihadis will, and I hope when the heads start rolling some key Dhimmicrats are first in line.

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

• Counterinsurgency Funding: the Good, the Bad, and the Weird
• Byrd, Clinton propose surrender legislation
• lslam vs. Islamists
• Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
• LAT: Early Withdrawal Would Be A Disaster
• Video: Murtha says Petraeus is a political hack
• CNN: No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn

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

Counterinsurgency Funding: the Good, the Bad, and the Weird -- Like a lot of Dafydd's posts, too complex to capture even a good taste of in a reasonable length excerpt. Just go read it.

***

Byrd, Clinton propose surrender legislation
Bryan Preston

Send ‘em a white feather. And stick a fork in Hillary!’s hawk credentials.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in the Senate Thursday she and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq.

The bill will propose Oct. 11, 2007, as the expiration date for the congressional resolution that authorized President George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. That resolution was approved Oct. 11, 2002.

So, basically, five years and we’re out no matter what will follow in Iraq or what that will do to America’s place in the world. No matter that our exit under those conditions will have the terrorists crowing that they defeated us. No matter that Iran’s power as the next regional hegemon kicks up a few notches.

Byrd and Clinton are setting the stage for another veto, or a constitutional crisis if the veto is overridden.

Michelle Malkin has more here. (H/T: Dan Riehl)

***

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails
By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

Bush said he is "confident that we can reach agreement," and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties. ...

Don't miss Ed Morrissey's related comments here. Kim Priestap has more here.

***

LAT: Early Withdrawal Would Be A Disaster
Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, CNN reported on the disastrous consequences that a precipitate American withdrawal would create for Iraq. Today, the Los Angeles Times follows suit, describing the delicate process of training a national army from scratch, and the collapse that would ensue if America bugs out:

[...]

Problems abound in the Iraqi security forces. The recruits have little experience, belonging mostly to the oppressed class under Saddam Hussein. Most of them assumed they would have postings near home, but the new efforts to secure Baghdad and Anbar have many of them far away from their tribes. The Iraqi government has not distributed pay efficiently, so many of them desert while on leave. The uptick in sectarian violence has tested the loyalties of many in the armed services.

The Iraqis have to overcome all of these problems in order to have a stable security force that can keep Iraq in one piece. They have made progress in most of these issues, but only stabilization will solve them all -- and they need training and discipline to being stabilization. The US employed the surge strategy to dial down the distractions and to give the Maliki government time to resolve some of the political issues while we focus on training.

And progress has been made. ...

***

Video: Murtha says Petraeus is a political hack
Ian Schwartz

On “Hardball” last night, John “Okinawa” Murtha bashed Gen. Petraeus, claiming he only came to Washington to “make political statements” and “only talks to the news media.”

Dan Riehl has some interesting background on Mad Jack's remarks here.

***

This was originally my last entry in yesterday's roundup. I posted it late enough in the day to be easily overlooked so I'm moving it here. The most surprising thing here is finding something like this on CNN, of all places:

No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn

CNN) -- Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

President Bush vetoed a war spending bill Tuesday precisely because the Democrat-led Congress required the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by October 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

Bush said such a deadline would be irresponsible and both sides are now working on new proposals -- which may have no pullout dates.

A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.

"It would also play into their strategy, which is to create a mini-state somewhere in the Middle East where they can reorganize along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late '90s," Bergen told CNN.com.

It was in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda allied with the Taliban, and were allowed to run terror bases and plan the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Bergen says it is imperative that the United States not let that happen in Iraq.

"What we must prevent is central/western Iraq [from] becoming a Sunni militant state that threatens our interests directly as an international terror hub," he said.

Don Shepperd, a retired Air Force major-general and military analyst for CNN, agreed that Sunni Muslim fighters who support al Qaeda would seek an enclave inside a lawless Iraq likely riven along sectarian lines into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. ...