An Old War Dogs Satellite Site


Wednesday, 18 July 2007
 

2007.07.18 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup

After All-Night Debate, Senate Rejects
Measure to Bring Troops Home From Iraq

WASHINGTON  —  The Senate rejected a plan Wednesday to bring home U.S. troops from Iraq by early next year after spending an all-night session debating whether to demand President Bush change the mission.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and move toward passage. Four Republicans voted with the Democrats, ...

Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman voted against the troop withdrawal plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who strongly supports the withdrawal approach, voted no as a technical move that allows him, under Senate rules, to bring the troop withdrawal plan back to a vote at a later date. ...

Below the fold:

  • Senate Democrats Lack Support From G.O.P. on Pullout

See also:

Senate Democrats Lack Support From G.O.P. on Pullout
Carl Hulse

WASHINGTON, July 17 — A handful of Republicans who have distanced themselves from President Bush on the war in Iraq refused Tuesday to back a plan to withdraw American troops from the conflict, leaving Senate Democrats short of the support needed to force a vote on their proposal.

As the Senate headed into an all-night session complete with cots in Capitol meeting rooms and an antiwar vigil across the street, some Republicans who have gone public with their complaints about the war strategy also weighed in against the Democratic withdrawal plan as ill advised and driven mainly by partisan considerations. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 18, 2007 at 12:33 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Tuesday, 17 July 2007
 

2007.07.17 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup

Below the fold:

  • Mitch McConnell: Dark Night of the Senate
  • Pace: US Weighs Larger 'Surge' in Iraq

See also:

Dark Night of the Senate; Stunting debate growth.
Mitch McConnell

While Republicans focus on the dangers posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, our long-term national-security interests in the Persian Gulf, and the warnings that the United Nations and the Baker-Hamilton Commission are issuing on the potential consequences of withdrawal, Democrats will spend the next 24 hours acting out what their staffers have referred to as a “publicity stunt.” They are staging a modern-day version of Jimmy Stewart’s round-the-clock filibuster from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to wear down opponents of a firm deadline for withdrawal. The only problem: They are, in effect, filibustering their own bill. ...

Pace: US Weighs Larger 'Surge' in Iraq
Robert Burns

BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military is weighing new directions in Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.

The military must "be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," Pace said in an interview with two reporters traveling with him to Iraq from Washington.

"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, the details will have been studied, he said.   ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 17, 2007 at 12:35 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Saturday, 14 July 2007
 

2007.07.14 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup

A Crossroads For The Surge
Ed Morrissey

The Times of London reports on a crossroads in Jabour that demonstrates the successes and the dangers of the surge in Iraq. While the soldiers would prefer to be elsewhere, the efforts to close down lines of communication for al-Qaeda and other terrorists has created an "Iraqi surge" in the area -- the creation of a new police unit from tribal volunteers who want the momentum to stay against the terrorists. The tribal leaders remain cautious about cooperating too much with the Americans, however, because they are afraid we're leaving:

Below the fold:

  • Bush beats back another mutiny over Iraq

See also:

Bush beats back another mutiny over Iraq
By: John Bresnahan

For all the hearings and dramatic speeches, for all the votes and news conferences by House and Senate Democrats -- and some anti-war Republicans -- President Bush is still getting his way on the war in Iraq and will likely continue to, at least until September.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, summed up the stalemate in Congress over Iraq this way at a news conference Thursday:

“The story is that after all of the bluff and bluster and after all of the political machinations and the efforts to use the [2008] defense authorization bill for the political purposes that have been described here and the purpose of undermining the mission of our troops, at the end of the week, we're left where we were at the beginning – namely, we support the president's policy, we support [Army] Gen. [David] Petraeus' mission and we support the efforts of our troops.”

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 14, 2007 at 03:04 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Thursday, 14 June 2007
 

2007.06.14 Iraq/Iran Roundup
-- Special "Incompetence they name is Harry" editon

Harry Reid Calls Military Commanders Incompetent
Ed Morrissey

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid showed his support for the American military by calling two of its top leaders "incompetent". Pandering to liberal bloggers, Reid made the comments in explaining his strategy to make Republican Senators sick of voting on the Iraq war and bludgeoning them into declaring defeat:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview. ...

So Harry Reid, the man who couldn't get a supplemental spending bill completed in less than 108 days, is calling Pace and Petraeus incompetent.

That's the same Harry Reid who couldn't get the Democrats' "100 Hours" pledges to fruition in over 120 days and counting. In fact, this is the same Majority Leader that has led the least-accomplished session of Congress in a generation. ...

Scott Johnson: What label for Harry Reid?

Bill Frist: More Solutions, Less Name Calling

Don Surber: Perspective

Uncle Jimbo: Harry Reid, real men, and last nerves

Sabotage in Samarra 
Michelle Malkin

Bill Roggio rounds up news and analysis of the twin bombings of the al-Askaria mosque's remaining minarets this morning in Samarra. John Burns at the NYTimes reports on efforts to avert sectarian reprisals:

[A]fter Wednesday’s renewed attack on the shrine at Samarra, 75 miles north of Baghdad, appeals for calm by Shiite political and religious leaders, as well as by moderate Sunni politicians and the top two American officials in Iraq, appeared to have headed off the risk of a new sectarian convulsion, at least for now.

By nightfall, with emergency curfews in Baghdad and several other cities, and Iraqi forces moving in to protect mosques across the country, there were only scattered reports of reprisal attacks.

Roggio warns aptly: ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on June 14, 2007 at 03:42 PM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Wednesday, 16 May 2007
 

2007.05.16 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.15 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

  • LTG Doug Lute Appointed War Czar
  • Getting the War Wrong... Again
  • Iraq withdrawal move thwarted in Senate
  • Obama and Clinton: Cut Off Funds for the Troops

*** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** ***

LTG Doug Lute Appointed War Czar
By James Joyner

After a long search in which he was reportedly turned down by several four star generals, President Bush has found his war czar in the J3’s office: Army LTG Douglas E. Lute. Presuming he is confirmed by the Senate, “Lute would have the rank of assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, and would report directly to the president. His job, which is part of a broader reorganization of the National Security Council staff responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan, would be to brief Mr. Bush every day on the two conflicts, and work with other government agencies — including the Pentagon and the State Department — to carry out policy.”

I expressed dubiousness about the whole idea of a war czar when it was first floated and the appointment of a 3-star who is currently running operations for the Joint Staff doesn’t win me over. ...

Jules Crittenden: Assume the Position

Phillip Carter: Doug Lute: Dream The Impossible Dream 

***

Getting the War Wrong... Again
Confederate Yankee

A chronic problem of news agencies reporting from Iraq is their apparent inability to separate sectarian violence--violence committed by one sect on another, typically Sunni to Shia, or Shia to Sunni--with the terrorist attacks instigated by al Qaeda and aligned groups.

al Qaeda will attack against anyone and everyone else, including their Sunni co-religionists. It is this propensity towards terrorism for terrorism's sake that has spurred both the Anbar and Diyala Awakening movements.

AFP today provides a prime example of the media mislabeling an act of violence, turning a terrorist attack into a sectarian attack, even when their own report indicates they got it wrong: ...

***

Iraq withdrawal move thwarted in Senate

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding — an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.

The Senate also narrowly rejected a proposal by Republican moderates intended to restrict U.S. aid for Iraq, after Democratic leaders lashed out against the proposal as too weak. The 52-44 vote was widely supported by Republicans, but fell eight votes shy of the required 60.

The Senate agreed only on a nonbinding resolution expressing the need to pass a war spending bill by Memorial Day. That proposal passed by an 87-9 vote. ...

***

Obama and Clinton: Cut Off Funds for the Troops
Kim Priestap

I can't think of anything that undermines or disheartens our troops in harms way more than to hear two presidential candidates stand up and publicly declare that all funds that support the troops in Iraq should be cut off:

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton separately declared their support Tuesday for a March 31, 2008, cutoff in funds for the Iraq war, two Democratic presidential front-runners abruptly shifting positions on a key issue.

The twin announcements came on the eve of the largely symbolic Senate vote on the cutoff and as Obama and Clinton compete for the support of anti-war activists.

Obama and Clinton are selling out our troops in exchange for support from anti-war activists. ...

That was yesterday. Today Clinton & Obama Vote To Cut Off Funds For Troops In Iraq (H/T: MM)

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 16, 2007 at 12:37 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Wednesday, 09 May 2007
 

2007.05.09 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.08 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

  • F. Thompson sharpens strategy
  • The inarticulate Barack Obama, pt. 2
  • Some other good early AM reads
  • Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths

Video: Mitt Romney’s second campaign ad
Ian Schwartz

Mitt Romney is the first top-tier Republican presidential candidate to run a national ad. The ad started in early April, but I haven’t seen it on television until recently:

Bryan adds: The ad deftly distances Romney from President Bush–who has spent money like mad and only used the veto twice–while coming across as positive and reformist and a conservative Republican. It gets Romney to Bush’s right on fiscal issues, where there is a lot of space and where any GOP hopeful needs to be. I can’t say I’m a Romney guy, but this is a solid ad imho. Not flashy or original, but it does the job.

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

F. Thompson sharpens strategy
By: Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson acknowledges his coming-out speech in California last weekend didn't live up to expectations, advisers say, and he is planning a tighter and sharper message dubbed "Stump Speech 2.0" for a Saturday night event to be attended by key conservative leaders.

Friends working on the speech say it will include more of a call to arms than the entertaining but unfocused after-dinner address Thompson gave to an eagerly expectant audience Friday night at the Balboa Bay Club and Resort in Newport Beach, Calif. ...

Friends helping Thompson with the speech say it will have more of a discussion of values issues than the Orange County outing and will emphasize the importance of confirming conservative judges....

***

The inarticulate Barack Obama, pt. 2
Michelle Malkin

[video link]

He's tiiiired.

When there's a crisis, you can count on Barack Obama...to say just the wrong thing. First, there was his bizarre rant tying the VTech massacre to Don Imus, Iraq, Darfur, and the kitchen sink.

Now, this:

Barack Obama caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

At the end of the speech, he recognized the flub:

As he concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.

"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

Noted. ...

Confederate Yankee Bob Owens comments "He was just using a Lancet estimate."

See also: The Rest Were Pledged

***

Some other good early AM reads (I might or might not find time for excerpts later):

***

Sort of a toss-up but I'm writing this off as simple stupidity as opposed to deliberate perfidy. Even the Obamanation wouldn't try to put over a whopper that big.

Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died. The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

Obama mentioned the disaster in Greensburg, Kan., in saying he had been told by the office of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that the state's National Guard had been depleted by its commitment to the Iraq War.

"Turns out that the National Guard in Kansas only had 40 percent of its equipment and they are having to slow down the recovery process in Kansas," Obama said, his shirt sleeves rolled up and his head glistening with sweat.

Don Surber: Is Obama too tired to be president? 

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 9, 2007 at 01:49 AM in Dem Dumbness, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

2007.05.09 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.08 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Halfway down the road to hell,
In a shady meadow green,
Are the souls of all dead troopers camped
Near a good old-time canteen.
And this eternal resting place
Is known as Fiddler’s Green.
-Author Unknown (via Sgt Hook)

And there shall our warriors rejoice at the sight as the Dhimmicrats parade by in chains on the way to their eternal reward.

Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill 
By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor (H/T: Jules C.)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com. ...

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.” ...

Dan Riehl has some choice comments here.

Don't miss Dafydd ab Hugh's excellent analysis here.

Below the fold, newest items at the top: 

  • US Embassy Attacked During Cheney Visit
  • How did they get here?
    Answer: Three came across the Mexican border
  • Tenet’s Tim Time
  • Bush Would Veto Democrats' New Iraq Bill
  • Does the LA Times know about the Fort Dix Six?
  • The John Doe at Circuit City
  • Jersey Jihadists, open borders, and the thanks we get
  • A Little Competence Would Be Nice
  • Democrats Move Closer To De-Funding
  • Some other good early morning reads
  • The political tornado in Greensburg
  • KS Gov tries her hand at disaster chasing
    Video added: Dingy Harry joins in after gov is debunked

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

US Embassy Attacked During Cheney Visit
Kim Priestap

The rocket attack did nothing to interrupt the vice president's activities in the embassy.

A rocket exploded near the US embassy in Baghdad on Wednesday, an Iraqi defence official said, during a visit by US Vice President Dick Cheney to the heavily fortified mission.

Smoke could be seen rising near the US compound shortly after the blast, which was heard at around 6:15 pm (1415 GMT). The Iraqi official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, could not say if there were any casualties.

Cheney's movements during his visit are being kept secret for security reasons, but the vice president later confirmed at at a press conference that "I spent today here basically in our embassy and military headquarters." ...

***

How did they get here?
Answer: Three came across the Mexican border
Michelle Malkin

So, what about the three illegal alien Jersey Jihadist suspects--the Duka brothers? Were they smuggled across the border or stowaways? That's what the feds are checking out now.

They're also checking to see if the three other accused jihadi plotters--one a naturalized US citizen, the other two green card holders--lied on their applications.

Yeah, that would be a shocker.

***

Update: Shocked, shocked...

Three brothers charged in the alleged Fort Dix terror plot have been living illegally in the U.S. for more than 23 years and were accepted as Americans by neighbors and friends who had no idea they would scheme to attack military bases and slaughter GIs. ...

***

Tenet’s Tim Time
By Fred Thompson

I watched George Tenet’s interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press Sunday. Tenet’s new book gives his version of history leading up to September 11. It’s almost obligatory nowadays; after you have been in the inner circles of an administration, you write a “tell all” book, including private conversations with even the president himself.

I haven’t read the book, but I have followed the media accounts. My attention was drawn to Tenet’s statements that al Qaeda is here and waiting and that they wish nothing more than to be able to see a mushroom cloud above the United States.

Naturally, the media emphasis is not on that.  ...

***

Bush Would Veto Democrats' New Iraq Bill 
By Anne Flaherty and Lolita C. Baldor (H/T: Lorie Byrd)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House threatened on Wednesday to veto a proposed House bill that would pay for the war only through July—a limit Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned would be disastrous.

The warnings came as Democratic leaders wrestled with how to support the troops but still challenge President Bush on the war. Bush has requested more than $90 billion to sustain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.  ...

Lorie has more here.

***

***

Does the LA Times know about the Fort Dix Six?
Don Surber

Timing is everything in journalism and comedy. The day after the FBI prevents the biggest terrorism threat since 9/11, the LA Times ran an editorial smacking President Bush for “eavesdropping” on Americans:

When the Bush White House proposes changing a law that protects Americans from unchecked electronic surveillance, civil libertarian knees begin to jerk. And understandably so. ...

Blah, blah, blah. The Washington Post, New York Times and the rest also ignored the Fort Dix Six. Readers read this for what it is: A failure to credit the FBI with an obvious success.

***

The John Doe at Circuit City
Michelle Malkin

I said it yesterday. I repeat it today: Thank you, whistleblower. Now, we know a bit more. He works at Circuit City:

A male employee who works at Circuit City behind the Moorestown Mall is the unsung hero that first enabled authorities to foil the Fort Dix terror plot.

Circuit City corporate spokesman Jim Babb confirmed this morning that a current employee was asked by one of the alleged terrorists to dub a Jihadist training VHS cassette into a DVD...

***

Jersey Jihadists, open borders, and the thanks we get
Michelle Malkin

Yesterday morning, I noted early on that Fort Dix had been a refuge for ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. As I suspected, Agron Abdullahu, one of the Jersey Jihadist suspects, was indeed one of the thousands of ethnic Albanian refugees from Kosovo whom we welcomed there in 1999 (hat tip: Allah):

A trained sniper during the war in Kosovo, Abdullahu and his family were among thousands given safe haven in the U.S. under the Clinton administration to protect them from the Serbs. For months, they would be housed in refugee camps at Ft. Dix, a circumstance which now points to a terribly ironic twist.

Terribly ironic? Or sadly predictable?

WPVI interviewed one of Abdullahu's co-workers:

"He never really came out and said he had a hatred towards Americans and I told him many times, 'look, you would have been left there if it wasn't for us helping you out.' If Clinton didn't bring them in, he never would have had the chance that he had. This is how he repays us," [Bob] Watts said.

Indeed. That's the theme of my syndicated column today. Here you go: ...

***

A Little Competence Would Be Nice
Confederate Yankee

It should probably come as no small wonder that the majority of the American people are against the War in Iraq; getting faulty misleading or inaccurate or even purposefully biased information does that.

Time and again and again, our soldiers and Marines tell us that the war they are fighting in Iraq is not the one being reported in the professional media.

Karin Brulliard's article in today's Washington Post is a prime example, starting with the headline, "Bombs Kill 20 in Sunni Insurgent Stronghold."

It may come as a bit of a shock to both Brulliard and her WaPo editors, but Ramadi has not been an insurgent "stronghold" by any practical definition for months.

***

Democrats Move Closer To De-Funding
Ed Morrissey

The Democrats have moved closer to using their actual Constitutional power to defund the Iraq war in a compromise bill being floated in the House. In the new supplemental, funding for the troops in Iraq would only be unconditional for two months. After that, it would cease entirely unless the Iraqis passed an oil revenue sharing plan and other restructuring bills that have not progressed as planned:

A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve....

One concession has to be made, which is that the Democrats have finally started to work within their Constitutional authority. Prior plans used elaborate ruses to force the President to end the war by juggling troop requirements and the like, all of which infringed on his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Hillary Clinton has begun to pursue an equally noxious violation of the Constitution by attempting to revoke the original authorization for the war, which she and other Democrats claim the President could not veto. It would amount to a diktat by the legislative branch, one about which the Supreme Court would have to squelch its laughter before throwing it out with great force. ...

I hope when the mushroom clouds eventually start rising above the U.S. Reid, Pelosi and Murtha are together so they have a couple of minutes to congratulate each other on how well they handled the war just before they die. Three would be OK. Anything longer is more than they deserve.

(Update) Don't miss Ed's follow-up post here.

***

Some other good early morning reads (I might or might not find time for excerpts later):

***

The political tornado in Greensburg
Michelle Malkin

President Bush heads to Greensburg, Kansas tomorrow to tour the devastation from the recent tornado.

Meanwhile, the political hurricane is still swirling in the wake of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' smackdown over a claimed National Guard shortage that she blames on the Iraq war. ...

See also:

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 9, 2007 at 01:24 AM in Caring about our troops, Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Tuesday, 08 May 2007
 

2007.05.08 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.07 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Justice: Islamist Plot To Attack Fort Dix
Ed Morrissey

The US Attorney's office in New Jersey says that a raid yesterday netted six radical Islamists in the Garden State before they had a chance to conduct a terrorist attack. Their target -- Fort Dix (via Hot Air):

Six people were arrested on Monday in connection with an alleged plot to murder soldiers at Fort Dix, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey, said the men are from the former Yugoslavia and were planning to "kill as many soldiers as possible." Five of them lived in Cherry Hill, he said. ...

Michelle Malkin has more here, Allahpundit's tracking the case here, PJM has coverage here.  Unsurprisingly, Bob Owens has some of the best coverage you're going to find here. Kim Priestap also has good coverage. Dan Riehl: Duka, Duka, Duka, Mohamad Jihad.

***

Jules Crittenden points out:

Another good reason to round up and deport all illegals, “immigrant” and otherwise, wherever we find them.  An illegal immigrant who has been detained and/or deported is one who won’t be driving drunk, committing sexual assaults, murders and burglaries, or planning jihad here.

***

Michelle has lots more here. Don't miss Dan's Riehl's update here.   

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

  • Should We Deal With the (Lesser) Devil?
  • Iranian Weapons. American Lives.
  • House Democrats Unveil New Iraq Proposal
  • Ditch The Accordion
  • White House, Kansas governor argue over storm response
  • Signed, signed, everything is signed...
  • Kansas Governor: Iraq War Slowed Response to Tornado
  • Kathleen Sebelius' Political Disaster

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

Should We Deal With the (Lesser) Devil?
Hatched by Dafydd ab Hugh

AP raises a fascinating question: Should we allow members of the Mahdi Militia to guard a very important Shiite mosque from al-Qaeda attack? (They overtly phrase it as a "dilemma," turning a question into a covert attack on the counterinsurgency strategy, in my opinion.)

In Kazimiyah, a densely packed [northern Baghdad] neighborhood of wooden shops and cheap hotels for Shiite pilgrims, the Americans and their Iraqi partners have opted for militia help to protect the shimmering, blue-domed shrine [of "the mosque of Imam Kadhim"].

With tacit American approval, plainclothes militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr set up impromptu checkpoints and patrol alleys day and night near the mosque.

The Americans believe that tolerating a discreet role for the Mahdi Army, which U.S. officers refer to by its Arabic acronym JAM [for Jaish al Mahdi, army of the rightly-guided one, or of the 12th Imam -- probably the latter], is better than either picking a fight with the militia or taking the blame if Sunni extremists manage a repeat of the February 2006 bombing of another Shiite shrine in Samarra.

Note that in areas like Kazimiyah and Sadr City, it's virtually impossible to wield any community influence without joining either the Mahdi Militia or the Badr Organization... just as in Germany in the 1930s, there were many civilians who joined the Nazi Party because it was the only way to get ahead (think Oskar Schindler).

Thus we must carefully distinguish between militia members who are actually bloody assassins -- and those who are just "go along to get along" businessmen with no overarching violent agenda.

That caveat accepted, I say it's a very close call... but in these particuar circumstances, with the horrific response that the destruction of that mosque would generate, I must side with the commanders on the ground and say Yes.

Let me convince you...

***

Iranian Weapons. American Lives.
By Richard Miniter

BAGHDAD—Maj. Martin Weber, an explosives expert, is trying to walk through a political mine field with me.

As with an ordinary mine field, you have to be very careful where you put your emphasis. Stress the wrong truth and either the left or the right wants to blow you up.

Here at Camp Victory, a sprawling concrete and razor wire American base that wraps around Baghdad International Airport, Maj. Weber was trying to explain how to negotiate that mine field. On the one side he wanted me to know me that the captured weapons on the table before us were — definitely, no doubt about it, absolutely — from Iran. On the other hand, he avoided drawing the obvious conclusion that Iran is supplying America’s enemies inside Iraq.

That simple and obvious conclusion would anger the Democratic leadership in Congress, much of the press corp, and a large swarth of the antiwar set.

Bear this is mind, when you watch this exclusive Pajamas Media video shot in Iraq. The video offers startling new evidence of Iran’s involvement in the insurgency. It is the first up-close, online video showing captured Iranian weapons. These particular weapons have not been shown to the public before. ...

***

House Democrats Unveil New Iraq Proposal 

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.

If members agree to back the plan as expected, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early as this week. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., was first disclosed Thursday by The Associated Press.

Republicans immediately dismissed the Democratic proposal as unfairly rationing funds needed in combat and said their members would not support it.

Democrats "should not treat our men and women in uniform like they are children who are getting a monthly allowance," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader.

Added Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., after a GOP caucus meeting Tuesday: "It's a irresponsible approach. You do not fund wars 60 days at a time." ...

The new version is likely to meet resistance in the Senate. Several Senate Democrats said they would oppose a short-term funding bill because it leaves open the question of whether troops will get the resources they need after July.

"There's the question of why it wasn't fully funded," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. ...

***

Kinda sorta related to this post if you consider how big a part of Sarko's time is going to have to be invested in trying to pacify Paristan. Jules also raises some good questions about whether France will finally step up to the plat in the global war on islamism:

Ditch The Accordion 
A word of unsolicited advice to Nicolas Sarkozy.
Jules Crittenden (H/T: JC)

There’s a great deal of justified excitement about your election, Mr. Sarkozy.

For starters, the French people have shown themselves not to be completely enamored by flash and false promises by rejecting Ségolène Royal, and they’ve chosen by a comfortable margin to elect you, someone who’s being called a French Thatcher, a French Reagan, who wants to reassert France in the world and restore a reality-based economy.

I don’t particularly give a damn about your economy. But it is an important issue for us, for Europe and for the world. France’s deeply entrenched socialism and its fearfulness about alienating the Muslim immigrant masses risk making it a third-world nation, ultimately a failed state we may need invade (again) someday. You have shown you are interested in taking on French labor and willing to stand up against extremism in France’s Muslim immigrant community. ...

***

White House, Kansas governor argue over storm response

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House fought back Tuesday against criticism from Kansas' governor that National Guard deployments to Iraq are slowing the response to last week's devastating tornado.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the fault was Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius'.

In a spat reminiscent of White House finger-pointing at Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco after the federal government's botched response to Hurricane Katrina, Snow rapped Sebelius for not following procedure to find gaps and then asking the federal government to fill them.

"If you don't request it, you're not going to get it," he said. ...

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback also disputed Sebelius after visiting the destroyed town on Monday. Brownback, a Republican candidate for president, said local officials and the Kansas National Guard commander all told him they have the resources needed to respond.

"That's what really got me, is her saying that," Brownback said of Sebelius. ...

***

Signed, signed, everything is signed...
By Jay Tea

Yesterday Captain Ed discussed the possibility of Congress repealing its Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, essentially un-declaring the war and forcing an end to our involvement. The question the good captain brings up is an interesting one: can Congress do this on its own, or must it submit it to President Bush for his approval (or, more realistically, his veto)?

This sort of thing was the crux of a couple of technothrillers I read a few years ago, "Balance Of Power" and "The Price Of Power." I know it's an odd place to get information, but several very fascinating Constitutional issues were raised and explored -- including the issue of declaring war.

The Constitution is very clear: Congress has the sole power to declare war. Since it is an exclusive power of Congress, like impeachment, it can be argued that it does not need presidential approval.

That argument falls on two points, however. The first is Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: ...

Seems to me we should all be writing our congresscritters encouraging them to vote for deauthorization. Then in the months or years it take the courts to sort things out W can go ahead and run the war however he pleases.

***

Kansas Governor: Iraq War Slowed Response to Tornado

GREENSBURG, Kansas —  The government's response to a tornado that destroyed a Kansas town and claimed the lives of at least nine people was undermined by ongoing National Guard deployments to Iraq, Kansas' governor said.

The massive tornado — a Category F-5 with wind estimated at 205 mph — was part of a weekend of violent storms across the Plains that killed at least 11 people across Kansas and demolished 95 percent of Greensburg, a town of 1,500 residents.

"I don't think there is any question if you are missing trucks, Humvees and helicopters that the response is going to be slower," Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said. "The real victims here will be the residents of Greensburg, because the recovery will be at a slower pace."

Sebelius said she would address the issue with President George W. Bush when he arrives in Greensburg to tour the damage on Wednesday. White House spokesman Tony Snow rejected the criticism, saying the National Guard had equipment positioned around the country to respond to disasters when requested by states. ...

Yeah, and ... and, besides that, if Chimpy McHitlerburton hadn't repealed that there Kyoto treaty there wouldn't even have been a tornado. Ain't that right, Kathleen.

***

Kathleen Sebelius' Political Disaster
Confederate Yankee

wonder just how accurate this headline is: Iraq War Hampers Kansas Cleanup.

The rebuilding effort in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, Kansas, likely will be hampered because some much-needed equipment is in Iraq, said that state’s governor.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius said much of the National Guard equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is gone. She said not having immediate access to things like tents, trucks and semitrailers will really handicap the rebuilding effort.

The Greensburg administrator estimated that 95 percent of the town of 1500 was destroyed by Friday's tornado.

The Kansas National Guard has about 40 percent of the equipment it is allotted because much of it has been sent to Iraq.

It is true, as Marc Danziger notes, that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said just weeks ago that:

...she fears deployments of Kansas National Guard troops and equipment could hurt the state’s ability to react to disasters on the homefront.

In the same KCBS article cited above, Kansas Rep. Lee Tafanelli (R), a member of the Kansas National Guard, notes that that Kansas Army National Guard still retained 70-80 percent of its manpower. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 8, 2007 at 12:27 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iran, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

2007.05.08 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.07 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

  • Quayle season?
  • The Flight To Flyover Country
  • All profile, no courage
  • Rudy donated repeatedly to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s
  • Giuliani the Insincere
  • Pro-choice Giuliani called acceptable

Does America Elect Defeatists? 
Hatched by Dafydd ab Hugh

I just received a very pessimistic e-mail from a close friend of mine (not Friend Lee) who is utterly convinced that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2008, even if the Iraq war is going much better. My correspondent is a libertarian-conservative who is obsessed with the "neo-cons," whom he hates with a passion and blames for "hijacking" the Reagan legacy and the Bush presidency (he even wrote a book about it, Post-Nationalism).

But why is he so despondent, utterly convinced that Hillary Clinton will be our next president? First, because he's not naturally an optimistic person; but more important, because my friend truly believes that the American people despise "neo-cons" as much as he does.

This is actually quite a common belief, that the entire country shares one's own burning, heart-felt principles (or obsessions). But I assured him, it's a delusion: The vast majority of Americans have no idea who or what the neo-cons are, and honestly couldn't care less. However, my friend, a political junky (as am I), cannot seem to understand the depths of ennui that most Americans have for the "inside baseball" of politics. As I wrote him: ...

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

Quayle season?
Don Surber

As Republicans kick the tires on the various candidates offered for 2008, they find themselves wondering if there is one once-married candidate who has never waffled on abortion, has stood tall on tax cuts and who has stood four-square for family values.

There is one name out on there that isn’t being mentioned: Dan Quayle.

I dunno, Don. You say potato, I say potatoe. It might make for an interesting campaign, anyhoo.

***

The Flight To Flyover Country
Ed Morrissey

Political analysts sometimes refer to the space between the two coasts as "flyover country," a space so uninteresting and unimportant that it bears little consideration until someone needs votes. The Midwest, with the exceptions of Chicago and perhaps the Twin Cities, get little credit for sophistication or intellectual interest. For the most part, people make jokes about cows and corn and consider the coastal megalopolises the center of American thought.

Michael Barone, writing in today's OpinionJournal, says that has changed in practice, if not yet in thought. More native-born Americans have left the coastal megalopolises for flyover country, stratifying the big American cities on the coasts and in effect abandoning them to immigrants: ...

***

All profile, no courage
Paul Mirengoff

The Washington Post has a good piece about John Edwards' plans to combat poverty. Edwards has made his program to "end poverty in 30 years" in this country his signature domestic issue. The Post story, by Alec MacGillis, provides insight into both Edwards and the issue.

The centerpiece of the Edwards plan is to do away with public housing projects and replace them with one million rental vouchers through which to disperse the poor into better neighborhoods, closer to good schools and jobs. However, as the Post explains, a major federal experiment started during the Clinton administration shows that dispersing poor families in this fashion does not improve earnings or school performance. When this inconvenient truth was brought to Edwards' attention during his November 2005 symposium on poverty, he apparently had no answer. ...

***

Rudy donated repeatedly to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s
Allahpundit

At least six times, maybe more, according to copies of his tax returns provided to Politico “by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.” The obvious (if unpersuasive) spin would be to insist that the money was meant for lobbying, to defend the right of privacy, not for the actual performance of abortions, which of course Rudy deeply, personally opposes. Instead his camp offered this non-answer:

“Mayor Giuliani has been consistent in his position — he is personally opposed to abortion, but at the same time he understands it is a personal and emotional decision that should ultimately be left up to the woman,” said Maria Comella.

Comella added that, “from the start, Mayor Giuliani has been straight with the American people about where he stands on the issues and saying exactly what he thinks.

“Ultimately, this election is about leadership, and it’s a sign of leadership to stand by your position in the face of political expediency.”

It’s a sign of leadership to insist that you despise abortion after having donated six times to America’s most notorious abortion provider? ...

***

Giuliani the Insincere
On abortion, the former mayor lacks both clarity and conviction.
By Rich Lowry

Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be the candidate of authenticity, the tough-talking former New York City mayor who sticks to his beliefs no matter what. But he is repeating a line that is so flagrantly insincere, it makes any of Hillary Clinton’s canned talking points seem free and natural by comparison.

Giuliani claims he “hates abortion.” Oddly, this hatred didn’t manifest itself until Giuliani realized he had to have something to say to pro-lifers besides that he supported abortion on demand in any circumstance.

Giuliani has been pounded by pundits for his answers on abortion at the first GOP debate. But he didn’t commit a gaffe. He only suffered from the contradictions of a position that appears to be the product of poorly thought-out political calculation. ...

***

Pro-choice Giuliani called acceptable
By Eric Pfeiffer

Two leading Republican lawmakers said yesterday that former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's pro-choice stance on abortion should not disqualify him from becoming their party's presidential nominee or from receiving the support of conservative voters.

Making the comments were House Majority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, one of Mr. Giuliani's rivals for the nomination. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a social conservative also running for the party's nomination, said during the Republican presidential debate last week that he could accept a candidate with differing views on abortion.

"I think it's an uphill fight on that issue," Mr. Boehner said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "But I think a lot of Republican voters see Rudy Giuliani as competent and able to do the job."

Mr. Boehner has not endorsed the Giuliani campaign. He noted the large delegation of House Republicans who met with former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee two weeks ago and said voters are open to a range of primary candidates. 

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 8, 2007 at 12:06 AM in Dem Dumbness, Politics, Rudy Giuliani | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Monday, 07 May 2007
 

2007.05.07 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.06 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

What Mandate? 
Tom Maguire

I was actually reading Frank Rich this morning, which is a clear indicator of the depths to which my morale has sunk, and I stumbled across this claim that the election was a mandate for the cut and run crowd:

Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the past: the war escalates even as all this finger-pointing continues. Very little has changed between the fourth anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” this year and the last. Back then, President Bush cheered an Iraqi “turning point” precipitated by “the emergence of a unity government.” Since then, what’s emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a major leap in the death toll. That’s why Americans voted in November to get out.

This claim that the November election result was a call to disarm has been made elsewhere - I noticed it in a recent Times story and heard it at a recent dinner party, but I can't find links to either one.

But not so fast!  Back before the ballots were cast, the Dem leadership was quite clear in their strategy - their pre-election plan was to refrain from offering a plan on Iraq,  ...

While you're in the neighborhood, don't miss A Babbling Brook Called "Hillary".

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

  • French Riots, Right On Cue
  • Report: Saudis, US sponsoring covert action against Iran
  • Update: How Many Cars Torched? (Media Lies)
  • Iraqis vs al Qaeda in Anbar

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

French Riots, Right On Cue
Ed Morrissey

After the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, many analysts expected unrest in the banlieus, the Muslim ghettoes that have percolated with unrest for the last several years. Overnight, the French have seen hundreds of cars burnt and hundreds of rioters arrested (via Memeorandum):

French police have arrested a total of 592 people across the country as bands of rioters protested conservative Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential election victory Sunday, French media reported.

The police said a total of 730 vehicles were torched and 28 police officers were injured in violent incidents from Sunday night to Monday morning. Police fought stone-throwing rioters with tear gas, but it was not clear how many rioters were injured, according to Radio France.

Segolene Royal deserves some blame for this. She tried playing the fear card in the week before the runoff that made Sarkozy the new president, and signalled the would-be rioters that the expected response would be chaos and destruction. The French do not need much of a push to demonstrate in passionate terms, and the warning of Royal that Sarkozy's election would lead to riots could also be seen as expert analysis -- but one might think that a person vying for national leadership would have shown more discretion. ...

***

Report: Saudis, US sponsoring covert action against Iran
Michael Roston

The governments of Saudi Arabia and the United States are working with other states in the Middle East to sponsor covert action against Iran, according to a report in this month's edition of The Atlantic. The report also suggests that covert attacks may occur against Iran's oil sector.

David Samuels, in a lengthy article on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, reports that the US is promoting a campaign against Iran that includes covert action. ...

***

Update: How Many Cars Torched? (Media Lies)
Charles Johnson (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Not only did the Associated Press bury their report that 367 cars had been torched in France, now it turns out that the media have been lying about the violence.

Because the actual number of cars destroyed by “youths” last night was 730—about twice the number reported by the AP.

This Reuters article also says 78 policemen were injured by the “youths,” and the violence was much more widespread than we’ve been told: Police hurt in French election violence.

[...]

This comes as no surprise, because French media have openly stated that they will cover up the true extent of the violence. And the French Constitutional Council recently passed a law criminalizing the reporting of acts of violence by anyone other than professional journalists.

See related: "...pour leur dire qu'ils peuvent compter sur notre amitié"

***

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 7, 2007 at 01:19 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, France, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Friday, 04 May 2007
 

2007.05.04 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.03 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

  • Investigative report: Iraqi PM tied to Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mahdi Army
  • Don't Abandon Us
  • Iran's ad should send shivers
  • Commander in Chief Kennedy
  • The real Dana Milbank resurfaces

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War 

WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.  ...

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

Investigative report: Iraqi PM tied to
Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mahdi Army
Bryan Preston

The invaluable MEMRI has translated a report in the Egyptian press that contends that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has direct operational ties to the Mahdi Army and, through them, to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. If it’s true, he would be tied to the forces who are directly responsible for killing approximately 170 US troops via EFP IEDs.

The first document, labeled “secret, personal, and urgent,” is a January 2007 letter from Al-Maliki’s office to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, with copies to the presidency of the [Shi’ite party] Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and to the Al-Shahid Al-Sadr organization.” [2] In it, Al-Maliki requests that the commanders of the Mahdi Army, who have ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, be pulled off the Iraqi frontlines, in order to protect them from being arrested or killed. The following is a translation of the document:  ...

Connections between Maliki and Sadr have been rumored to exist for a while now. Maliki’s exile time during the Saddam years lends weight to the possibility that he would be connected to the Iranians, since he was connected to them then. But to be connected to them now, when they’re driving much of the violence in Baghdad and elsewhere? When Iran’s short-term goals are to ramp up the pressure on the US via terrorist attacks, so the Democrats will force a retreat from Iraq, and its long-term goals are to become the regional power?

Yeah, it’s still plausible. All too plausible.

***

Don't Abandon Us
By Hoshyar Zebari (H/T: Kim Priestap)

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

Today, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government will ask the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq? ...

***

Iran's ad should send shivers
The notice, appearing worldwide, sought bids for constructing two nuclear power plants.
Claudia Rosett (H/T: Scott Johnson)

Among the surreal events becoming ever more frequent in the nuclear showdown with Iran was the appearance of an ad last week in the International Herald Tribune, inviting bids to build "Two Large Scale Nuclear Power Plants in Iran."

The ad ran in all editions of the paper, which is owned by the New York Times, and reaches more than 240,000 readers in more than 180 countries. Somehow this outrageous solicitation escaped the notice of major world media. That's remarkable, at a time when Iran has been flagrantly defying United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to halt its nuclear bomb program - with both the U.N. and U.S. Treasury calling for a freeze on the assets worldwide of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on behalf of which the ad was placed.

The ad did get noticed in Israel, a country that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would like to see wiped off the map. Bloggers picked up the story, and a scanned version of the ad began circulating, with commentary, on the Internet. It smacked of Iranian nose-thumbing so extreme one had to wonder if it was a spoof.

It's no joke. ...

See also: 'Herald Tribune' defends Iran nuke ad

***

Commander in Chief Kennedy
James Taranto

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq," the New York Times reports:

Mrs. Clinton's proposal brings her full circle on Iraq--she supported the war measure five years ago--and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House. ...

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.

Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

So let's see. Mrs. Clinton supported the war when it was popular, then changed her position after public opinion shifted. She is now pretending Congress can put the toothpaste back into the tube by "repealing" the authority for an intervention that has already occurred. The legislation she is proposing has little chance of passing, since significant Republican support would be needed to override a veto. If it did pass, no one has any clue what practical effect it would have. It would be left to federal judges to sort that out.

Mrs. Clinton is seeking the presidency, so maybe the idea here is to make the job easier by delegating her commander-in-chief duties to Justice Anthony Kennedy. It's hard to see how the Times can keep a straight face while calling this "leadership," though.

***

The real Dana Milbank resurfaces 
Paul Mirengoff

When I cancelled my subsription to the Washington Post in 2004, the woman on the other end of the phone asked me, as she was required to do, what my reason was. I responded, "Dana Milbank." Milbank's abominable coverage of President Bush wasn't my only reason, of course, but it pretty much captured the problem.

These days, I wouldn't cite Milbank. He's left the Whtie House beat and set up shop on page 2 where he produces "human comedy" style reporting in which he takes mostly deft shots at politicians from both parties, though more Republicans than Democrats.

Evidently, though, Milbank's hatred of President Bush has not abated, and today he produced a disgraceful column in which he attacks Bush for once again playing the al Qaeda card in Iraq. Milbank declares: "The man who four years ago admitted 'no evidence' of an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks now finds solid evidence of a role in Iraq by the Sept. 11 hijackers." Milbank goes on to suggest that Bush's argument flies in the face of the Pentagon inspector general's conclusion that al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq before the U.S. invasion. He thus engages in the absurd pretense that there's a contradiction between the view (which itself isn't quite true) that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in 2002 and the view that it's there today.

But surely Milbank understands that the level of contact between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to our invasion tells us nothing about the extent of al Qaeda's presence in Iraq today. Bush's argument, as reported by Milbank, is that we should remain in Iraq and "fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11." It's a pretty good argument, good enough that Milbank wants to change the subject and talk about whether al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9/11. But whatever was true pre-invasion, no one seems to dispute that al Qaeda is there now. The question is whether we will remain to take it on, or give up that fight.

Milbank makes a second argument which is as bad as the first.  ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 4, 2007 at 02:32 AM in Dem Dumbness, Dem Perfidy, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Wednesday, 02 May 2007
 

2007.05.02 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup

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. sup