Rep. John Kline just returned from his fifth trip to Iraq. Just like Keith Ellison’s report in July, he’s seen some amazing results. That’s according to this Strib article. The funny thing is that Keith Ellison doesn’t think that anymore. Here’s what the Strib article reported:

Kline said the lawmakers were greeted by children who laughed, teased and asked for money. Adults smiled and gave the thumbs up. “Just a sense of normalcy, people getting on with their lives,” he said.
The take by Kline, a conservative Republican, was similar to one by the state’s liberal Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, who visited Ramadi in July. In that trip, Ellison noted that people were walking the streets of the city, going to the market, and he had commented on the “general level of respect and calm that I thought was good.”

Here’s what Ellison said in July:

Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, “we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market.”

There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.

“The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership,” he said. “So they’re not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they’re doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives.” (continue reading post »)

When Nancy Pelosi sat down for an interview with Boston Globe reporter Scott Helman, she certainly was doing so as the hyperpartisan that she is. The image she left behind wasn’t flattering.

In an hourlong interview with the editorial board of The Boston Globe, Pelosi said responsibility for the war no longer lay just with President Bush but with her Republican counterparts on Capitol Hill, who she said are more interested in protecting Bush than working to redeploy the 169,000 American troops now in Iraq. “We have to make it very clear to the American people that it was George Bush’s war [but] it is now the Republicans in Congress’s war,” she said.

The perception among many Americans, she said, is that Democrats, despite leading Congress since January, had failed to make meaningful progress toward ending the war, which they promised to do after winning both chambers of Congress in last fall’s elections. “They think we just aren’t doing it, and that’s good for Republicans,” Pelosi said.

Democrats know that they’d get killed in 2008 if they simply didn’t act to fund the troops. They’ve tried enticing Republicans into voting with them for political cover, especially in the Senate. Give Mitch McConnell credit for keeping Republicans together. Democrats haven’t been profiles in courage, either, instead choosing to voice the words of their MoveOn ventriloquists.

Pelosi said Democrats had been willing to work with Republicans to find common ground on Iraq, but that a turning point came last week when Republican senators blocked a war measure sponsored by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb’s proposal would have required that troops get as much time at home as on the war front.

The common ground that Ms. Pelosi is talking about isn’t common ground. She tried to get Republicans to capitulate and vote for the Democrats’ surrender legislation. That’s what this charade has been about. In fact, Democrats thought that Republicans would return from their August recess chastened and willing to vote for surrender. They thought wrong.

Republican support for victory increased when they went home. It was further bolstered when Gen. Petraeus testified two weeks ago. Now republicans are on the offensive because Gen. Petraeus was able to talk about the considerable progress being made in Iraq, especially in Anbar Province.

While the administration envisions a lasting troop presence in Iraq, Pelosi said she wants to see a troop redeployment begin soon, with a goal of having the bulk of American forces out of Iraq within a year or so. Until then, she said, the United States will continue to be distracted from its more worthy fight against terrorism, including operations in Afghanistan, and to see its reputation stained.

This is typical MoveOn.org talking points. The reality is that beating a hasty exit from Iraq would create a new safe haven for terrorist training. The American people have figured that out. They can’t be fooled by the Democrats’ talking points because they now believe that Iraq is winnable.

Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Boston Globe, Democrats, David Petraeus, August Recess, MoveOn.org, Anbar Province

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Based on John Murtha’s op-ed in the Johnstown Tribune Democrat, it’s obvious that, not only isn’t he repentant; he’s downright defiant:

In Congress, I also have the privilege of serving our military as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. In August, the House passed a $459 billion Defense Appropriations Bill, and as chairman, my name is the only one that appears on this bill. I take this responsibility very seriously and I believe the bill we produced this year is one of the best we have ever passed.

Let Rep. Murtha talk about the defense budget increases if that’s what he wants to do. It doesn’t change the fact that Murtha trampled the Haditha Marines’ constitutional rights when he accused them of “killing innocent civilians in cold blood”, then covering it up. I’ve watched public officials do some utterly despicable things in my lifetime. I watched LBJ lie to the American people about winning in Vietnam. I watched Nixon lie about the coverup of Watergate. I’ve seen Dan Rostenkowski literally brag about the gifts and trips he got from lobbyists because he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee.

With that said, I can state without hesitation that Murtha’s tossing the Haditha Marines’ constitutional protections under the proverbial bus for political gain is the most reprehensible thing I’ve ever seen. Murtha deserves a serious reprimand for that alone. That’s before considering his threatening Mike Rogers on the House floor when Rep. Rogers challenged the usefulness of the NDIC in Murtha’s hometown of Johnstown. Rogers should know about that since he’s a former FBI special agent.

It’s time that Murtha was sent packing. It’s time that We The People dumped a bunch of chlorine into the House’s ‘gene pool’.

Technorati Tags: John Murtha,Corruption, Earmarks, Haditha Marines, NDIC, Mike Rogers, Constitution, Slush Fund, CREW

Cross-posted at href="http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2007/09/25/defiant-murtha-lashes-out/"> LetFreedomRingBlog

It’s hard to believe but that’s the only conclusion you can draw after reading Doug Turner’s column in the Buffalo News. Here’s what Mr. Turner said:

On the integrity front, Democratic Rep. John Murtha, Pa., remains an embarrassment to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DCalif., who lost a fight to make
him majority leader.

Every entity that got an earmark appropriation from Murtha this year gave him a campaign contribution, according to a survey by the newspaper Roll Call and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The lucky 26 groups gave Murtha campaigns $413,000. He ensured that these friends got $114.5 million worth of projects from his appropriations committee.

Special spending bills, wrapped in secrecy, are at the core of congressional corruption. The House Democratic leadership is blocking legislation to make them public and subject to challenge on the House floor.

And Murtha is one of 13 House members who said last week they will fight subpoenas, claiming constitutional immunity, to testify in the trial of one of the defense contractors who is accused of bribing former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., who is now in jail.

Turner isn’t the only one taking notice of Murtha’s corruption either: (continue reading post »)

Those were the two most compelling sentences in Michael Barone’s latest column. Mr. Barone’s column is one which serious people must pay attention to as election season is almost upon is because it talks about a serious change in “the narrative” on Iraq and the Middle East. Here’s part of Barone’s column that prefaced his “dangerous world” comments:

True, some Democrats persist in saying that the aggressive surge strategy has
made no difference, and large numbers of voters are not convinced that it has. But it is now possible that the added troops will, in Bush’s phrase, “return on success.” That’s a sharp change from what has been the dominant narrative.

Another event that undermines that narrative took place on Sept. 6, but only began to be appreciated in Washington last week. That was the Israeli air attack on Syria. Israeli officials have said nothing in public about this (although opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said he supported the action), and Bush flatly refused to comment in his press conference. But on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens speculated that “the least unlikely
possibility” was that the target was a North Korean nuclear installation.

Democrats had made progress with their defeatist rhetoric because Bush’s prosecution of the war was awful. That’s changed because he finally has the right man for the job, a man who literally wrote the military’s book on counterinsurgency operations. It didn’t help the Dems’ storyline when the UN announced that it was returning to Iraq because security had improved greatly:

After a meeting with Mr Ban, Mr Maliki said the security situation had “improved
a lot in Baghdad”.

“We are going to be able to provide security to the UN in a way that will allow it to perform its role in an effective manner,” hesaid.

As much as Democrats didn’t want to hear that, this paragraph must unnerve them the most:

Mr Ban said: “There was a clear agreement that the international community
cannot turn away from, or ignore Iraq. Its stability is our common concern.”

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha have advocated the swift removal of troops, which would precipitate a major collapse of Middle East stability. Another thing that would affect Middle East stability is a nuclear Syria. Barone writes about that here:

North Korean technicians were known to be in Syria, and the North Korean
government protested the attack. By Friday, The Washington Post reported that “Israel’s decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, said U.S. government sources.”

Israel won’t let Iran get a nucleaer weapon; why would it let Syria get one? The American people were reminded that Democrats don’t have a plan to deal with a dangerous world beyond their mantra of redeploying troops to “fight the real war on terror.” Hillary certainly doesn’t have any credibility in that department. She’s been flippant at best in terms of America’s national security.

These events will have an impact on the presidential campaign because it provides a stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats. MoveOn.org won’t let the Democrats develop a coherent strategy in fighting global jihadists. Even if the pacifist wing would let them, there aren’t any indications that Democrats understand the complexity of the fight or the ferocity with which this war must be fought.

It’s time that Republicans start reminding the American people that they’re serious in fighting the terrorists whereas Democrats will say a few obligatory words about defeating the jihadists before returning to ‘their issues’. It’s time that Republicans told the American people that Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats planned on stripping the intelligence budget while they increased funding for global warming:

Promise: “We all, Democrats and Republicans alike, take very seriously our
responsibility to protect the American people. We know the important role that
intelligence plays in that.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Press Conference, January
8, 2007

Promise: “This bill contains robust funding for critical intelligence programs …” – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX), Floor Remarks, May 10, 2007

Broken Promise: Democrats pledged to provide full funding for critical intelligence programs, but just months after taking power, they took precious resources away from critical intelligence programs and used the money to fund research on global warming instead. “Led by U.S. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes of Texas, a coalition of D.C. Democrats say national security will be better served if CIA cash is used for global warming research, because apparently there just aren’t enough people studying the issue out there.” – “‘Intelligence’ Committee Threatens National Security,” Detroit News Editorial, May 13, 2007

That doesn’t sound like a political party that takes national security seriously. If the American people believe that it’s a dangerous world out there and that we must make progress, then it’s imperative that we elect people who are serious about defeating the jihadists. That eliminates the Democrats currently running for president.

My friend Bones says that Republicans aren’t without fault but “at least they aren’t trying to get me killed.” He can’t make that statement about Democrats. I wholeheartedly agree.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Maliki, United Nations, Syria, Nuclear Weapons, Israel, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Homeland Security, Global Warming, Defeatocrats, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s the question I’m asking after reading this article about MoveOn.org announcing that they’ll pay what they should’ve paid in the first place:

The activist group MoveOn.org said it will pay the New York Times $77,083 to make up the difference between what it paid for an advertisement attacking U.S. Army General David Petraeus and the regular ad rate.

The group acted after the newspaper’s public editor wrote in a column today that the controversial full-page advertisement on Sept. 10 violated standards on content and the price given to MoveOn.org wasn’t proper under Times policies.

“While we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad,” Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org’s executive director, said in a statement confirmed by the organization.

That’s professional spin and then some. The truth is that MoveOn.org paid the standby rate even though they were guaranteed to run on the morning of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony. Here’s the last sentence from the MoveOn.org ad: (continue reading post »)

Despite MoveOn.org’s NY Times advertisement and despite Hillary Clinton’s statement to Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Petraeus’ is seen as more trustworthy now than before he testified. That’s according to a new Gallup Poll:

In survey results released Wednesday by the Gallup polling organization, 54 percent of respondents said they believe Petraeus’ plan for removing troops is the right pace or too quick, while only 33 percent view the withdrawal as moving too slowly. Also, 52 percent of those polled said the plan withdraws the right amount or too many troops, while 36 percent said it removes too few troops.

The same poll shows that, even after attacks on his credibility and integrity from Senate Democrats, as well as the MoveOn.org ad that asked if he was “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” a higher percentage of respondents now view the top U.S. military commander in Iraq favorably (61 percent) than before his testimony (52 percent), while only 22 percent view him unfavorably.

(continue reading post »)

If there’s anything consistent about John Murtha other than his demands to legislate defeat in Iraq, it’s his unwillingness to answer reporters’ questions. I know this from personal experience. This time, Rep. Murtha won’t answer the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s questions:

CREW criticizes Mr. Murtha for being too close to PMA Group, a lobbying firm founded by a former staffer on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which the congressman chairs. The firm has been very successful at winning federal contracts for its clients. PMA Group and some of its clients also are top donors for Mr. Murtha’s campaigns, giving $274,649 in the 2006 election cycle.

Mr. Murtha also faces criticism for directing a $1 million earmark to a subsidiary of Concurrent Technologies Corp., an organization based in the congressman’s district.

Mr. Murtha’s office declined to comment, but the congressman has said it is his duty to bring federal money to Pennsylvania and spur economic development.

If that isn’t bad enough, Rep. Murtha has notified the U.S. District Court of Southern California that he won’t honor their subpoena to testify in the trial of a a defense contractor named Brent Wilkes:

On Monday night, Mr. Murtha released a floor statement about his receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. District Court of Southern California in the trial of Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor.

Mr. Cunningham, the former California lawmaker, is serving an eight-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to accepting more than $2 million in bribes to help Mr. Wilkes and others.

In his statement, Mr. Murtha said he would resist the subpoena, citing advice from the House general counsel that it “is inconsistent with precedents and privileges of the House.”

I’ll ask Rep. Murtha which precedents and privileges he’s referring to but I’m expecting his office to decline comment on the subject. (continue reading post »)

Move over, Jon Bruning; you’ve got company. According to this article, US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will resign soon so he can run for the Senate seat currently occupied by Chuck Hagel. Hagel has announced his retirement at the end of this term. The news that we were getting rid of Chuck Hagel put a smile on Republicans’ faces. Knowing that Nebraskans will have two top-tier candidates to pick from to replace Hagel is even better news. In fact, Johanns’ candidacy might stop Bob Kerrey’s return to politics.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns has decided to resign from President Bush’s cabinet to return to Nebraska and enter the 2008 Senate race. Johanns, the former two-term Republican governor, began placing phone calls to a number of friends and supporters in the state Tuesday night to inform them of his decision.

A formal announcement is expected in Nebraska next week after Johanns has submitted his resignation to the White House, according to a source close to Johanns.

I’ll be surprised if Johanns isn’t the immediate frontrunner for the GOP nomination. This isn’t to take anything away from Jon Bruning or Hal Daub. It’s just that Johanns was a popular governor before becoming President Bush’s Agriculture Secretary. Having that high of a profile certainly will help Johanns make the case that he gives Republicans the best chance of holding the Nebraska seat.

Technorati Tags: Mike Johanns, Chuck Hagel, Jon Bruning, Bob Kerrey, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

There isn’t any question about Richard Cohen being a liberal columnist. That said, he deserves credit for writing this column, in which he pillories Hillary for not coming to Gen. Petraeus’ defense. I just sent Mr. Cohen an email thanking him for not mincing words and for taking on the MoveOn.org bullies. I’d recommend we all take the time to do that. Here’s a tasty portion from Cohen’s column:

If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than “the politics of personal destruction,” it does not come to mind. All the others, “It’s the economy, stupid,” for instance, belong to one or the other, but “the politics of personal destruction” is a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly, so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as “General Betray Us,” Hillary Clinton looked the other way. This was the politics of personal expediency.

There’s an old saying in Middle East diplomacy that says that “Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” It appears as though Hillary has missed this opportunity to prove herself a genuine centrist. She failed this test badly and the whole world noticed.

Part of the reason why everyone noticed is because Rudy Giuliani spotted an opening and drew a big red X on Hillary’s chest for going silent: (continue reading post »)