Why is it that when asked questions about gays in the military, and Gen. Peter Pace’s comments about homosexuality these to candidates ducked the issue? Because just like on every other issue they do not want to alienate any possible votes. They want to have it both ways so they can’t have a true opinion. What has happened to the days when politicians told you where the stood on every issue and let the voters decide who they wanted? Why are we subjected to these political whores who will do and say anything to get elected, while saying nothing at the same time? This happens with politicians on both sides of the isle, but seems to be rampant in the Democrat party. For six years now they have waited to see where the president stands on an issue and then take the opposite position, so now they have no real position of their own.
At least Gen. Peter Pace had the courage to say how he feels.
From newsday.com, here is an article showing Hillary and Obama running away from the gays in the military issue:
Clinton, Obama skirt queries on gays in the military
BY GLENN THRUSH
WASHINGTON — If gays and lesbians were looking for a champion to dispute Gen. Peter Pace’s claim that homosexuality is immoral, they might have expected Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama to leap forward.
Not quite. While both Clinton and Obama are courting gays and lesbians, and would allow them to serve openly in the military, the Democratic front-runners have been curiously reticent about challenging the statements of the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. Read more…
What Is The Scandal With Firing The US Attorneys?
From cnsnews.com:
‘Mistakes?’ Or a ‘Media-Manufactured Crisis?’
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
March 15, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – President George W. Bush, echoing the “mistakes-were-made” admission of his attorney general, says he does have confidence in Alberto Gonzales, although he’s “not happy” about the way the Justice Department handled the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
Many conservatives are not happy, either, with the way the Bush administration is responding to what many consider an agenda-based attack. Democrats and some leading media outlets are out to get the Bush administration, leading conservatives say, and Alberto Gonzales is just the latest battering ram.
At a press conference with the Mexican president on Wednesday, President Bush said the situation involving the U.S. attorneys was “mishandled” — “to the point now where you’re asking me questions about it in Mexico…”
Bush said the reasons for firing the eight U.S. attorneys were “entirely appropriate.” He noted that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. And as for political motivation, “it’s just not true.”
Bush said he did receive complaints about some U.S. attorneys, but he “never brought up a specific case,” nor did he give Attorney General Gonzales “specific instructions” on what to do about those complaints.
President Bush said he “appreciates” the fact that Gonzales has publicly admitted “he could have handled it better.”
“What was mishandled was the explanation of the cases to the Congress,” President Bush said.
“I talked to him (Gonzales) this morning, and we talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made,” Bush told reporters.
Bush said he’s troubled by the fact that both Republicans and Democrats feel like the Justice Department did not offer them “straightforward communication” on the firings.
“This is an issue that — let me just say, Al was right, mistakes were made, and he’s going to go up to Capitol Hill to correct them.”
Bush said “there is a lot of confusion” over the “customary” presidential practice of dismissing federal prosecutors (eight of them, in Bush’s case; all of them in 1993, when Bill Clinton was president).
What scandal?
While some Democrats (and Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire) are calling for Gonzales resignation, there’s a lot of grumbling in conservative ranks about the way the Bush administration has responded to the Democrats’ outcry over the firings.
It’s a “great lesson” on “how to respond when you’re under some sort of silly attack,” Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program Wednesday.
“The Drive-By Media, the Democrat Party, is trying to destroy this presidency,” Limbaugh said. “If they can, they will take him out prior to the election in ’08. If they can’t do that, what they’re trying to do is isolate him in such a way that no Republican will come to his defense or the defense of the administration…”
Limbaugh suggested that the “administration itself is having trouble getting its message out” because Republicans in Congress are too worried about their own political futures to tie themselves to the beleaguered President Bush.
If Republicans don’t feel comfortable defending the Bush administration, “go out and defend your party,” Limbaugh said. “Attack the Democrats, and make it clear what’s going on here.”
What’s going on
What we have here is a double-standard on the part of Democrats and the media, which has largely failed to mention the mass firing of U.S. attorneys during the Clinton administration, said Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III. (The Media Research Center, which highlights liberal bias in the media, is the parent company of Cybercast News Service.)
“You can’t have it both ways,” Bozell told Fox & Friends on Thursday. “You can’t say that what the Bush administration is doing is somehow wrong” — and then omit any reference to what the Clinton administration did in March 1993.
Bozell made it clear that he’s not defending the Bush White House — “because they’re just incapable of defending themselves…but the point is, if you’re going to report this, you’ve got to report this fairly.”
The Media Research Center has examined how five broadcast and cable TV networks handled their interviews with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the Wednesday morning shows.
“None of the Gonzales interviewers — at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FNC — ever mentioned that the Clinton administration fired all 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993. How can firing eight be a ‘crisis’ and firing 93 be not worth a solitary mention?” the MRC asked.
According to the MRC, TV journalists asked Gonzales 42 questions on Wednesday morning – and not one mentioned the Clinton firings (which some people believe were politically motivated). But – “Every network asked Gonzales whether he would resign — 10 times in total.”
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal on Wednesday explored the hypocrisy of accusing the Bush administration of abusing its power, while ignoring what the Clinton administration did.
The article explains “the politics at play” in the Clinton administration’s decision to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys — apparently as cover to get rid of one or two specific prosecutors before they could bring indictments unfavorable to the Clinton agenda.
“If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York,” the opinion piece suggested.
Democrats’ Iraq War Resolution Fails
This is good news. Notice how even in defeat, the Democrats try to portray this as a victory.(see Harry Reid’s comments in this article)
From politico.com:
Democrats’ Iraq War Resolution Fails
A Democratic attempt to set a March 2008 goal to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq failed to win majority support in the Senate this afternoon as three Democrats – Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn,), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) – crossed the aisle and voted with Republicans. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) was the lone Republican to support the Democratic proposal.
The measure was defeated by a 50 to 48 margin. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote, while Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) has been absent for months following brain surgery. Under the rules for this debate, Democrats needed 60 votes to pass the authorization resolution, and it fell far short of that threshold.
Despite the defeat, Democrats portrayed the vote as highly significant since it was the first time that Congress has voted on withdrawing or pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq since the war being in March 2003.
“We had a very good day for the Democrats, mostly for the American people,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters following the vote, according to Politico’s Carrie Budoff. “Republicans are going to have to decide whether they will continue to support the failed policies of this president or change the course. We are in the middle of a civil war.
Reid added: “There is no silver bullet. This is part of a process, a process working every step of the way to bring our troops home.”
The Nevada Democrat also said that no decision has been made on whether Democrats will try to include a withdrawal timetable in an upcoming Iraq supplemental that will soon be on the Senate floor, although Republicans predict they will.
“This is a process,” said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who along with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was a driving force behind pushing for a vote on a new Iraq authorization resolution. “There were 48 votes, the vast majority of the Democrats, voting for a change in process. I predict to you that before we get through the summer, the Republicans are going to understand that they cannot continue to choose the president over the troops. They cannot choose to stay with a policy that has no end in sight, versus a policy that offers a way out.”
Senate Republicans, backed by President Bush, had strongly opposed the Democratic resolution as an infringement on the president’s power to conduct the war, and an unwarranted congresional intervention in military affairs. Democrats argued that United States needed a new direction in Iraq with the war entering its fifth year.
The Democratic resolution would have altered the U.S. military campaign in Iraq by requiring American troops to shift into a support role for the Iraqi Army, with particular emphasis on conducting counter-terrorism operations. It would also have set a goal for beginning a U.S. withdrawal on March 31, 2008, with most American combat units out of the country in 120 days later.
Republicans had filibustered several earlier attempts by Democrats to force an Iraq vote, but let this one proceed, gambling that some Democrats would vote against the measure because of the withdrawal timetable.
“I am very concerned about deadlines,” said Nelson, one of the three Democrats who voted against party leaders on the resolution. “Nevertheless, I think the president can get the message that there’s an awful lot of concern about the conduct of the war.”
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), considered one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans heading into the 2008 elections, rattled through a long list of perceived mistakes made by the Bush administration in running the war, but still said it was wrong for the Senate to deadline for withdrawal.
“Everyone wants to see better results” in Iraq, said Sununu, who added that he was against sending more troops to Iraq. “But we shouldn’t send that information to our enemies” about when American forces would leave Iraq.
“You tell the enemy, ‘This is when we are going to be leaving,’ that is a bad idea,” said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), another GOP vulnerable. “It troubles me that every vote is looked at as wins and losses.”
Coleman claimed that he was unconcerned about the political ramifications of the vote heading into what could be a difficult re-election campaign.
“Whatever I do until November 2008 will be looked at in terms of my re-election,” Coleman said. “The best thing is for me to do what I believe.”
The Senate also approved, by overwhelming margins, two competing resolutions from Democrats and Republicans stating that Congress would never cut off funding for U.S. troops in the field. Republicans had been insisting for weeks that they wanted a vote on their resolution, authored by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), and proclaimed its passage by 82-16 margin a huge victory for their side. 15 Democrats and one Republican – Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee – voted against the measure.
Corker also voted against a similar Democratic resolution introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). That measure, which both sides jokingly called “Gregg Lite,” passed by a 96-2 margin. Corker and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) were the only senators to vote against the Murray resolution.
Fred Thompson Writes About The Firing Of US Attorneys
From nationalreview.com:
Power of the President
Strength is necessary.
By Fred Thompson
|
Editor’s note: Click here to listen to the original radio commentary this transcript is based on. |
Once again the Washington scandal machine is in full frenzy. This time the hapless Justice Department is baring the brunt. It’s over the administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Who’s responsible for this atrocity? The aide at Justice in charge of the firings has been run out of town. Yesterday’s Washington Post front-page headline read “firings had genesis in White House.” The Democrats vow congressional hearings to determine if (if you can imagine this) politics were involved. Even Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was able to be coaxed into saying a few words. “Just when we thought our faith could not be shaken any further” he said.
The only problem is: There was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys. Of course the Department of Justice was inept in the way they did it, trying to conceal things that didn’t need to be concealed but the U.S. attorneys, like innumerable other public officials serve at the pleasure of the president. He fired eight of his own appointees apparently because they we not aggressive enough in pursuing voting fraud cases. In 1993 Attorney General Janet Reno rode into town and fired every U.S. attorney in the country but one-all Republican appointees.
Amidst all this foolishness there is a serious question here. Considering the times we live in, do we really want to continue to try to chip away at the traditional powers of the president? Regardless of who wins the White House, don’t we need a strong president?
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS
Another Post On The Surge’s Success To Date
Here is an article that talks about the fatality rate decline since the Baghdad security crackdown started. Now, if the Democrats are against the surge and the surge is saving American soldiers lives then the Democrats……nevermind, draw your own conclusions.
From kuna.net:
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) — The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.
As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.
9/11 Mastermind Confesses To 29 Attacks
I just hope this man was treated humanely, I hope he wasn’t treated like the soviets in their gulags. Right Senator Durbin? I’m sure the ACLU will attempt to say the confession was coerced out of him with torture.
From breitbart.com:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a string of others during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon. Mohammed claimed responsibility for planning, financing, and training others for bombings ranging from the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center to the attempt by would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his shoes.
In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 29 individual attacks, including many that were never executed. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which also blacked out some of his remarks.
The Pentagon also released transcripts of the hearings of Abu Faraj al-Libi and Ramzi Binalshibh.
Binalshibh is suspected of helping Mohammed with the Sept. 11, 2001, attack plan and is also linked to a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London’s Heathrow Airport. Al-Libi is a Libyan who reportedly masterminded two bombings 11 days apart in Pakistan in December 2003 that targeted President Pervez Musharraf for his support of the U.S.- led war on terror.
The hearings, which began last Friday, are being conducted in secret by the military as it tries to determine whether 14 alleged terrorist leaders should be declared “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.
Hearings for six of the 14 have already been held. The military is not allowing reporters to attend the sessions and is limiting the information it provides about them, arguing that it wants to prevent sensitive information from being disclosed.
The 14 were moved in September from a secret CIA prison network to the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where about 385 men are being held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
Democrats Finalize Budget Proposal
The senate Democrats have finished their budget for 2008 and there are a couple of things I find interesting.
One: They failed to come through on two of their campaign promises. They promised to roll back the Bush tax cuts, they didn’t. They don’t want to be seen as the tax raisers they are. They also promised to end the war. They didn’t. They could have defunded the war and ended it quickly, but they are trying to pretend they support the troops.
Two: They have proposed increased spending (suprise) in several social issues without mentioning how they are going to raise the money. In other words, they promise everything to everybody, but deliver on nothing. So if none of the social programs are implemented they can say it was in the budget, it’s not our fault. If taxes are raised to implement them they will say it’s for a good cause.
Here is an article from usatoday.com about the budget proposal:
| Senate Democrats’ budget leaves war funding intact |
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats will unveil a 2008 budget today that would boost spending for uninsured children, students and veterans without cutting funds for defense or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The budget also would not roll back any of President Bush’s tax cuts after 2010, when they are set to expire. It says the tax cuts can be extended if they are paid for.
The spending plan, to be voted on Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee, is more specific about its additions than its subtractions. Most decisions on how to pay for new spending or tax cuts are left to the committees that will turn the budget blueprint into legislation.
“We do not tell them how to raise the money,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the budget panel. “We do not tell (them) how to spend the money.”
In fact, the budget is most notable for what it would not do, despite Democrats’ attacks: reduce Bush’s war spending or tax cuts. Senate Democrats do not want to be seen as hurting troops or taxpayers. House Democrats will unveil their proposal next week.
It will be the first budget written solely by Democrats in 13 years.
The omissions and lack of specifics on how the new initiatives would be paid for prompted questions from Republicans.
“We’ll need to take a look at the details to see if the math adds up to a tax increase on American families and job creators, a move which would put our strong economy in jeopardy,” White House budget director Rob Portman said.
The budget resolution sets the parameters for the tax and spending bills that comprise the federal budget. It does not have to get passed, and it does not require the president’s signature. But without it, the budget process in Congress usually breaks down, as it did last year when Republicans failed to pass most appropriations bills.
Highlights of the plan:
•This year’s $248 billion budget deficit would rise to $249 billion next year. By 2012, it would be replaced by a $132 billion surplus.
•The Children’s Health Insurance Program would get up to $50 billion more over five years, about $45 billion more than Bush proposed and enough to insure all eligible children. Education programs would get about $6 billion more than Bush proposed next year, and veterans programs would rise by about $3.5 billion.
•The Defense and State departments would get the full $142 billion Bush seeks in 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats also kept Bush’s proposed $481 billion defense budget, a $49 billion boost over this year.
•Tax rates would not be increased, but the budget would seek to clamp down on tax cheats and offshore tax shelters to raise new revenue. The alternative minimum tax, which targets the rich, would not raise taxes on the middle class for two years — one year more than Bush proposes.
From opinionjournal.com:
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration’s decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from–gasp–the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for “the politicization of our prosecutorial system.” Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we’d suggest she call herself as the first witness–and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton’s choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno–or Mr. Hubbell–gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was “within 30 days” of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton’s economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to “politicizing” Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President’s pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush–or any President–to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor’s race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the “voters” were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were “discovered” in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.
In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn’s director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.
As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney’s managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don’t have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.
Dems Can Cut And Run,But They Can’t Hide
From davidlimbaugh.com:
Newscasters and pundits keep talking about the dilemma the Democrats are facing in legislatively opposing President Bush’s troop surge. But this is hardly anything new. The Democrats have never had any answers on Iraq or the larger war on terror. It’s just that now, they’re going to have a harder time avoiding that fact.
We all know what the Democrats oppose in the war, but after all this time, do we know what they are for?
They are against the war in Iraq, and they are opposed to most of the tools the administration has used to prosecute the war on terror. They are against much of the Patriot Act, the NSA domestic surveillance program, the trial of enemy combatants in military tribunals, tough interrogation techniques, Gitmo and Bush’s harsh language against the “evildoers.”
They are against “unilateralism” when they mistakenly think Bush has employed it (in the build-up to the Iraq attack) and against multilateralism when Bush is obviously employing it (Iraq and North Korea).
But what would they do to combat terrorism? What would they have done to prevent Saddam Hussein from using or selling to terrorists WMD we all thought he had? What would they have done to enforce compliance with his post-war treaties and U.N. resolutions? What would they have done had they been in power on Sept. 11 against Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban other than demanding due process and strict proof tying them to the attacks?
Their “Bush lied” mantra gave them cover through the November elections, but their acquisition of congressional control resulted in pressure to come up with a plan of their own. If their response has been any indication of how they would manage the war should they win the White House, we just need to pray harder that they don’t.
They didn’t dare push through a resolution cutting off funding for the troops. The loftiest aspiration they had was to achieve the Pyrrhic victory of passing a resolution in both houses of Congress condemning the troop surge in Iraq. But they couldn’t even pull that off.
Though Sen. Schumer threatened that Democrats would propose “resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment” until the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, his party can’t decide whether it should rescind the Iraq war resolution, tie the president’s hands by imposing stifling readiness restrictions on our troops a la “Slow-bleed Murtha,” demand inflexible benchmarks and dates certain for withdrawal or propose something else to demonstrate their “support” for the troops.
Will they be able to tie some oppressive rider to the president’s upcoming military budget request, or will their extra-constitutional scheme to usurp executive powers to micromanage the war even alienate the moderate wing of their party?
The Democrats aren’t refusing to offer a plan on Iraq just because of their inability to reach an intra-party consensus, but also because they don’t have any answers with the long view in mind.
They can continue to obfuscate with their claims that we weren’t justified in attacking Iraq and that we’re not competently prosecuting the war. But they have no suggestions as to how we could better prosecute it. Their answer is only to leave, as fast as we can.
But even here, after all their tough talk, their legislative proposals don’t quite match their rhetoric. They portray their support for benchmarks as responsible policy. But their promise to withdraw our troops even if these arbitrary timetables aren’t met — any negative consequences to our national interest be damned — prove their utter lack of seriousness on the war.
Indeed, have you ever heard any leading Democrat make an attempt, even a feeble one, to answer how we will deal with the guaranteed devastating consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq? It’s one thing for them to argue — erroneously — that deposing Saddam wasn’t worth risking American lives. But will they also finally argue that ceding Iraq to terrorist control will be inconsequential to U.S. interests?
Try as they might to avoid dealing with the inevitability of these consequences, reality is beginning to hit them squarely in the face. No matter how unpopular the war, Democrats can only survive so long without bellying up to the bar of policy responsibility.
Though they skated through the last election on negative energy alone, without offering any plan, capturing the presidency by stealth should be a much tougher assignment.
If the impending legislative battles don’t flush out the bankruptcy of the Democrats’ policy on the war, perhaps the primary contest will. They can run (and cut and run) only so long, but in the end they can’t hide from their morally indefensible (absence of a) position on the war.
Posted by David Limbaugh at March 12, 2007 07:18 PM
The Real Death Toll Of The War On Terror
America has been involved in a war on terror for too many years now. I’m not talking about the war in Iraq, although that is part of it. I am talking about a war on terror that started many, many years ago. The true beginning of the war is arguable, you might say it began in 1979 with the Iran Hostage crisis or 1982 with the hostages taken in Lebanon, but I am going to start in 1983 with three separate attacks on the USA. Two were in Lebanon and one in Kuwait.
Here is a list of terrorist attacks on Americans starting in 1983, the statistics in this list come from infoplease.com:
1983 April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.1985
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.
1993Feb. 26, New York City:bomb exploded in basement garage of the World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected
1995Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania:truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 12 were Americans.4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Coleheavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001September 11: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.
So as you can see here we have been fighting terrorists for 24 years or so depending on what you consider the start date. Or should I say the terrorists have been fighting us for 24 years, we only finally started fighting back in 2001, when George W. Bush desided to take the fight to them.
Using these numbers from 1983-2001 3,166 Americans have been killed by terrorists. This number may be off slightly as a couple of the dates shown don’t distinguish between American casualties and other casualties. I took the lower number in these cases.
Now I move to the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq war. According to icasualties.org as of this date 3,195 Americans have been killed in Iraq, and 373 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan. This brings the total of Americans killed in the war on terror up to 6,734.
The mainstream media does not see it this way. They consider all of the previous attacks separate incidents, as do probably much of the American public, and the politicians. But these incidents are related, they have always been related, and America is fighting back. We must not stop until all of the radical terrorists are destroyed.
The lack of action before 2001 probably emboldened the terrorists to the point where they knew they could pull off the September 11th attacks. We must not waiver, we must pull together as a country and show the courage to carry out the mission until it is finished.
It is time win the war on terror, it’s already gone on far too long.
