Yesterday on Meet the Press Senator Joe Biden had some choice comments that deserve attention.

MR. RUSSERT: But make no mistake about it, the bill that you voted for authorized the president to go to war.

SEN. BIDEN: It allowed the president to go to war. It did not authorize him to go to it. You make it sound like it said, “Mr. President, go to war.” It said, “Mr. President, don’t go to war.” It said “go to the United Nations. Mr. President, don’t go to war, try to get a deal here. Mr. President, get the inspectors back in. Mr. President, tell us that that’s what you’re about to do. And, Mr. President, if all else fails, you have authority to use force.” That’s what it said.

These are interesting statements. He says to “go to the United Nations”…the same UN that unanimously issued Resolution 1441, threatening Iraq to disarm? Biden says “get the inspectors back in”. The same inspectors that Saddam hadn’t complied with? The same inspectors that President Clinton and others said Iraq had failed to comply with and had interfered with?

In fact, reviewing Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq shows nothing of the sort. It states nothing about inspectors, except to say “Whereas Iraq…attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities”, and “Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council” and “Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660″. This all seems to indicate the willingness to proceed with military efforts.

Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002states the same. This resolution provided authorization as follows:

AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

This sounds pretty clear to me, and it should to Senator Biden to…after all, he voted for it.

Mr. Biden, in the early stages of his presidential bid, is doing his best to distance himself from his earlier statements and his vote.

Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket

Follow this link if you want to read an utterly biased article about Iraq. It even comes with a set of predetermined conclusions. Here’s an example of their bias:

On the surface, there’s not much suspense about what happens next in the battle between President Bush and Democratic lawmakers over the war in Iraq. Bush says he will veto the $124-billion war spending bill passed by both houses of Congress last week that requires him to begin withdrawing troops this year; when he does, Democrats say, they will protest and then send him the money without binding conditions.

That noisy script, however, is just a prelude to a debate, under conditions likely to be more difficult for Bush, that could turn into a decisive moment for the course of the war.

Why does the LA Times think that the September debate will happen under “conditions likely to be more difficult for Bush”? Why are they assuming that the trends we’re now seeing won’t continue? Why is it a forgone conclusion that our military can’t defeat the jihadists?

Most importantly, why is the LA Times ignoring stories like this one in the NY Times? Let’s take a look at the NY Times article.

Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

“Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”

This article leads me to this question: If the American and Iraqi troops continue in tamping down the AQI, why will the September vote happen under conditions hostile to President Bush? Is it because that’s the predetermined storyline that the LA Times ‘reporters’ are expected to follow? (continue reading post »)

Today, George Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm, hits bookshelves throughout the country. Within the pages of the book, Tenet seeks to exonerate himself of any culpability to any intelligence failures in the lead-up to the Iraq war. As readers will recall, Tenet - appointed by President Clinton - is best known for his “Slam Dunk” statement, informing President Bush that intelligence about WMD in Iraq was “a slam dunk case!” Now, Tenet is claiming that he never said those words. Or, if he said them, he didn’t mean them in this context. Yeah, something like that.

Unfortunately for Tenet, the memories of most of us is somewhat better, and the details of events is not so easily forgotten. Mr. Tenet seems to be forgetting that he has already confirmed that he said these words, and has already, seemingly, claimed responsibility for the error:

George J. Tenet, former director of central intelligence, said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had ‘’slam dunk'’ evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons. ‘’Those were the two dumbest words I ever said,'’ Mr. Tenet told 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday in Kutztown, Pa. The theory was a leading justification for the war in Iraq. Such weapons were not found.

While Mr. Tenet may wish he never said those words, his own statements indicate otherwise.

Yet, this is not the only inconsistency in his book. In order to further shift the blame, Tenet indicates that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made only hours after 9/11.

On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility.”

He confirmed this encounter on 60 minutes last night. Yet, according to Richard Perle, this conversation never happened. In fact, it couldn’t have happened, because Perle was stranded in France on 9/12, and unable to return until 9/15!

Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday.”

Perle denies the encounter. The facts discredit the claim. If Tenet merely got the date wrong, it contradicts his quote. If he made up the encounter and manufactured the quote, it explains everything.

While President Bush has been charged with misleading us and making up his own facts, it would appear that these charges are somewhat misdirected. George Tenet clearly has difficulty with the truth.
Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket

Think of how breathtaking that headline is. That’s a stunning statement but that’s what happened when Bob Schieffer interviewed Murtha for Face The Nation:

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

As I pointed out last week, John Murtha ignored the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and the right to a fair trial when he ‘tried and convicted’ the Haditha Marines before he had any firsthand knowledge of what happened. Now Murtha is willing to throw the Constitution aside to put political pressure on President Bush over a policy dispute. That doesn’t pass constitutional muster because it doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors.

It’s apparent that Murtha doesn’t think he’s bound by the Constitution. It’s equally apparent that he thinks it’s ok to do whatever he wants because his goals are right. That’s the epitome of arrogance. It’s also the picture of injustice. Frankly, if Mr. Murtha attempts to impeach President Bush, he should be evicted from the House of Representatives for willfully violating the Constitution.

Many is the time that I’ve heard the phrase that “this is a nation of laws, not men.” Unfortunately, Mr. Murtha doesn’t believe that anymore. He thinks that laws don’t apply to him. It’s time that we let Rep. Murtha that his ignoring the Constitution isn’t acceptable. It’s time we told him that he’d better change his ways or we’ll have him fired next November.

Technorati Tags: John Murtha, Impeachment, Constitution, President Bush, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Once Katherine Kersten started writing about MAS, CAIR and other Muslim ‘civil rights organization’, it was predictable that someone would write that Kathy was an ‘Islamophobe’. That eventuality happened in Friday’s Strib in this op-ed by Ahmed Tharwat. Here’s a sample of Mr. Tharwat’s propaganda:

From the “flying imams” fiasco at the airport, to the cabdrivers facing off with the Metropolitan Airports Commission about transporting alcohol, to the current flurry of articles about plumbing adjustments to accommodate foot-washing at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Kersten’s interest strikes me as paranoia, or even out-and-out phobia.

Allow me to utterly destroy Mr. Tharwat’s complaint against my friend. First, Kathy’s writing about the defiant cabbies pointed out how the Muslim American Society (MAS), a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, was part of a much bigger agenda:

Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, thinks he knows why the society is promoting a “no-alcohol-carry” agenda with no basis in Somali culture. “MAS is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs,” he said. “MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation.”

Based on that information, it’s pretty difficult to say that Kathy’s writing was based on paranoia or “Islamic-phobia.” It sounds more like Kathy exposed MAS’s political agenda. (continue reading post »)

One of the things that’s been missing in the debate on the Iraq War supplemental bill has been Democrats talking about listening to the generals. Instead, they’ve been talking about President Bush not listening to the American people. This Washington Times article provides us with a typical Harry Reid quote:

“We hope the president will reconsider his stubbornness and his refusal to listen to the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

That’s quite a contrast from what Reid and Pelosi said just a couple months ago. Here’s some of their quotes (H/T Captain Ed):

Senate Democrats voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus in January.

• “Listen to the generals.” - Sen. Harry Reid, 01/19/2007
• “If the President won’t listen to generals, he won’t listen to the American people, who have spoken for a new direction, then perhaps he will listen to us, Congress, when we send him a supplemental bill that acknowledges reality in Iraq.” - Reid, 03/26/2007
• “Just listen to the generals.” - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 02/27/07

What’s obvious to the trained observer is that the Democrats have now bought into the Insane Left’s agenda, lock, stock and barrel. Gone is the pretense that they believe in defeating the jihadists.

In fact, there’s proof that if they controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they’d make us fight the jihadists blind. That proof comes in the form of the legislation that John Conyers would “correct the Patriot Act”. The proof comes in the End Racial Profiling Act that Conyers and Pelosi co-sponsor. (continue reading post »)

In what should send the clearest signal on what’s at stake in Iraq, an Iraqi government spokesman criticized the Senate’s vote. Here’s what he said:

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

He went on:

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

Undeterred, Democrats launched a media counteroffensive:

“It is with great pride that I stand with you after the passage in the Senate today, and yesterday in the House, of this legislation that takes us in a new direction in Iraq.

“I have said that the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing our nation. How ethical is it to send our troops into harm’s way, into war without the training, the equipment and a plan for success? How ethical is it to place them in the middle of a civil war, undermining and straining our military?

“How ethical is it to do that, to diminish our capacity to fight the war on terrorism, to fight any threat to the interest of the United States wherever it may occur, at home or abroad?

“How ethical is it to destroy our reputation in the world, diminishing our ability to be a force against terrorism and a leader in the world? (continue reading post »)

The Treasury Department is reporting that they just experienced a record one-day tax collection of $48.7 billion on April 24. Here’s the full story:

U.S. tax receipts from individuals hit a record one-day high of $48.7 billion on April 24, a Treasury Department official said on Wednesday. The previous record was $36.4 billion, set on April 25, 2006, said Jennifer Zuccarelli, a Treasury spokeswoman.

The record reflects taxes not withheld from individuals over the course of the year, but paid to the government before this year’s April 17 income-tax deadline.

While some of those tax payments come from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed, much of it was owed on income from investments or profits. “This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The one-day total is a small fraction of the estimated $2.5 trillion in overall tax receipts the government is likely to collect in fiscal 2007, Crandall said. But strong tax revenues point to the likelihood of a shrinking budget deficit, he said.

Democrats will cast this as proof that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share”. Democrats will also seek to marginalize the impact that the Bush tax cuts have had on the economy. (continue reading post »)

When it comes to propaganda, you’ve really got to hand it to the NY Times. This article is a perfect example. Here’s what I’m talking about:

The Supreme Court put defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on the defensive on Wednesday in a spirited argument that suggested the court could soon open a significant loophole in the measure.

Memo to the NY Times: It isn’t that the Roberts Court might open ” a significant loophole” in BCRA. It’s that they’re likely to restore a portion of the First Amendment that five liberal idiots stole from us in December, 2003. They’re taking the First Amendment to mean what it says, namely that Congress can’t write laws that prohibit the exercise of free speech. They’re saying that we can say what’s on our mind, especially when it’s about the political process in general and politicians specifically.

They did get it right when they said that the Supreme Court put BCRA lawyers on the defensive, though. They’ve got a right to be worried because they can’t count on Sandra Day O’Connor to make her policy wishes come true. Instead, they’ve got to worry that Samuel Alito will take the Constitution literally. The BCRA good government types had best worry that their tinkering with the Constitution is history. (continue reading post »)

Sen. Lieberman, easily my favorite Democrat, has written an op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post that offers us a great perspective on the war in Iraq. Here’s part of what I’d call the ‘Lieberman Perspective’:

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

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

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

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

(continue reading post »)