It's official...

[Yonivore]

The anti-war rhetoric is just about politics. At least I feel better knowing the Democrats aren't really serious about surrender.

The House resolution, passed today, that demands a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is yet another Democratic ruse, a sham, another useless piece of legislation. The final vote had more Democrats crossing over to oppose it (10) than Republicans crossing the aisle to support it (4), and it faces a certain veto if it even gets through the Senate:

Iraq has achieved only spotty military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration conceded Thursday, an unenthusiastic assessment followed quickly by a House vote to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled House despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

***

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

Unfortunately, for the authors, the AP writes the bill much more coherently than the Democrats in Congress did. The bill does not define the "residual force" in either size or scope, and it doesn't specify exactly what is meant by "other terrorists". In fact, it is useless as a military plan or as a public policy, and could get interpreted to maintain almost as many troops as are deployed at the moment.

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg pointed this out in his speech in opposition to the bill.

First, it is a purely political do ent, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ‘limited presence’ in Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of the ‘minimum force levels required to protect the United States’ national security interests in Iraq.’

While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests,’ is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests’ aren’t defined. ...

The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic Leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can’t agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they defined ‘limited presence’ as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn’t. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress.

This shows why the military cannot be run with 535 Commanders-in-Chief. This does nothing but make war policy especially murky and unwieldy. If this is the caliber of military thinking in the 110th Congress, it's even more imperative to rebuke them for their uncons utional power grab.

“Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I honor him and respect him deeply. But this legislation is deeply and fatally flawed. It will damage America and American interests for two reasons:

“First, it is a purely political do ent, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ‘limited presence’ in Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of the ‘minimum force levels required to protect the United States’ national security interests in Iraq.’

“While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests,’ is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests’ aren’t defined.

“You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is easy: because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about politics.

“The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic Leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can’t agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they defined ‘limited presence’ as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn’t. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress.

“Again, let’s look at the other term, ‘minimum force levels required to protect U.S. national security interests.’ Why not define what the minimum is? Answer, again, if they define it too high, those who want out tonight and want out force levels at the lowest conceivable level couldn’t vote for the bill. And if they define it too low, then those who recognize we face a threat from Iran and other regions’ interests wouldn’t vote for the bill. It is deeply flawed for those reasons.

"And I would ask proponents of the bill what they would say if the President, as he could under the language of the bill, were to decide that ‘limited presence’ means 154,000 troops, just 1,000 fewer than we have now. That would comply with the letter of the bill, but it wouldn’t satisfy proponents of the bill.

“And what if the President, as he can under the language of the bill, were to define the term ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national interests’ not as 155,000 troops as we have today, but rather at 500,000 troops?

"You see, they can’t agree on those terms. I wonder how many of the Members realize that the critical terms in this bill aren’t defined.

“The bill is also flawed for a second reason, and that is that it reneges on the essential agreement Congress struck just 2 weeks ago. It is a little bit like Lucy pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown just before he kicks it. Here, don’t rely on my opinion; rely instead on today’s Washington Post. You see, today’s Washington Post editorial makes the case for me. The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative journal, says, ‘It seems like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General David H. Petraeus to report back on the war’s progress in September.’ Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t September.

“The Post goes on to write, ‘Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some hope.’ We owe it to those generals to give them, as the Washington Post says, the months they asked for, but, instead, we have given them 27 days.

“I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.”

Worst.Congress.Ever!

How many days are we into this Congress with only one meaningful piece of legislation?

[Yonivore]

ABC's Jake Tapper attempted to get Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to answer a simple question:

Will Iraq be safer for Iraqi civilians if we pull out?

He spins, he twists, he dives; but, in the end, Harry Reid refuses to answer the question.

Yes. Worst.Congress.Ever.

[Yonivore]

Those of you who want to walk away from Iraq should probably consider the foresight of one Herbert Meyer, Deputy Director of the CIA under William Casey.

Back in November 1983 he wrote an extraordinary memo to CIA director William Casey on the subject “Why Is the World So Dangerous?” Meyer’s answer was breathtaking:

“Present U.S. policies have fundamentally changed the course of history in a direction favorable to the interests and security of ourselves and our allies. . . [I]f present trends continue, we’re going to win the Cold War."

Meyer thought this prospect made the world a more dangerous place in the short run, as surely some perceptive Soviet leaders, “more likely at the third or fourth echelons,” recognized that their future was bleak, and as such, some actions, including possibly launching a war, “may no longer be too risky to contemplate.” (He probably could have included that these third and fourth echelon regime leaders could also sell Soviet military assets on the black market)

“From now on the Cold War will become more and more of a bare-knuckles street fight.” The next few years would be “the most dangerous years we have ever faced.”

His most audacious speculation was astounding for its prescience:

It has long been fashionable to view the Cold War as a permanent feature of global politics, one that will endure through the next several generations at least. But it seems to me more likely that President Reagan was absolutely correct when he observed in his Notre Dame speech that the Soviet Union—“one of history’s saddest and most bizarre chapters”—is entering its final pages. We really should take up the President’s suggestion to begin planning for a post-Soviet world.

This is preface for establishing why we might want to pay attention to Meyer’s analysis of where we are today in the terror war.

Synopsis: The doves (let's call them Surrender Monkeys) are gaining the upper hand right now, but should another attack occur, "you won’t want to walk down the street wearing an ’I gave to the ACLU’ pin in your lapel. . . And if we’ve closed GITMO by this time - we’ll reopen it and even double its size because we’re going to pack it. All of this will take longer to organize, and cost more, than if we’d done it right in the aftermath of 9-11. That’s unfortunate, but that’s the way we Americans tend to do things. And when we do finally start fighting for real -- we’ll win."

I guess we'll see how prescient he is this time.

[clambake]

speed freak...................keep pushing........keep pushing

[Nbadan]

Howard Dean today: What Bush is not telling you about Iraq

[Yonivore]

Howard Dean today: What Bush is not telling you about Iraq

Howard Dean? Yeaargh!

What the would he know about Iraq? He's not even in Congress. He's a political hack.