About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Of Scorn And Backroom Deals ... UPDATED--Romney and Rudy blast the "kung pao Congress"

Posted by on Saturday, March 24, 2007 2:56:53 AM
 The WaPo is not happy with the Democrats. In fact, the are busy scolding the heck out of them for putting over 28 billion in pork spending in the new legislation which is supposed to be a war supplemental, according to Captain Ed:

TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

Basically, this amounts to bribery. Come on board. We will spend money in your state for your project, and we will stuff it in the supplemental war bill if you will just give us your vote. I hate to see supposed adults groveling like this. But, Captain Ed notes that it looks like they have the votes finally:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

All right. Now comes the fun part. Let the measures go through from the House and the Senate. They will arrive on the president's desk, and he is going to veto them both. Then they get to go back through this all over again, only it will be tougher because they need the two-thirds vote to get it passed. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi know they lack the two-thirds majority, and because of that they know both of these efforts are futile.

I would love to give these people respect for the tenacity they have, but I cannot because they are, well, not the brightest bulbs in the box. Also, the Victory Caucus is reporting that Madame Speaker wil not be there for the vote itself. Where will she be? This evening, she will be in NY city at a $28,000 per couple fundraiser.

Marcie

UPDATE: According to The Examiner the Democrats managed to pass this pork-laden thing:

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

I guess they moved up the vote so it did not interfere with Madame Speaker's flight to New York this afternoon. Still though, they should know that this will be vetoed by the White House, so it is all for naught. In fact Byron York @ The Corner picked this up from the White House pres room:

THE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE POOL ON THE IRAQ WAR EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL AT 1:45 PM EDT TODAY, MARCH 23, 2007, IN THE DIPLOMATIC RECEPTION ROOM AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

Anyopne care to wager what the president will say? We are guessing something along the lines of "You idiots. I am geting my veto pen ready," or something to that effect.

Marcie
UPDATE II: President Bush says that "this is not going to happen:"

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

Just over an hour later, Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of troops to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater that delays the delivery of resources to soliders fighting in Iraq. If the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, Bush said troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."

"A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resoures they need to do their job," the president said. "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen."
J-Pod @ the Corner has this amusing little joke about Andrew Sullivan:

Q: What is the sound of one hand clapping?
A: Andrew Sullivan giving himself a standing ovation.

Heh. While that is amusing for Mr. Sullivan, I would like to offer it up for the Democrats who voted for retreat, defeat, and a ton of pork in a war supplemental bill that has less than a snowball's chance in Hell of making it through the Senate. And if my some miracle it does, there is no way -- NO WAY --the president will sign it. He will not alow Congress to micro-manage the war, and he sure as heck will not sign a bill with so much pork spending in it; that WAS a part of his SOTU address back in January -- reigning in such spending.

Did the Democrats really thihnk that they were going to be able to pull this one off? Seriously. MAYBE if Nancy Pelosi could have mustered up something larger than the slim majoirty this passed by, and if Harry Reid could miraculously pull sixty votes in the Senate, then they may have had a case for the president to sign it. If President Bush saw that they had pased it by the two-thirds necessary to override his veto, then he may have consigned himself to defeat. (Though we explicitly and sincerely doubt that would happen.) President Bush would have vetoed it, and forced Congress to do it all over again.

These nuts in Congress really do not understand the war. They keep proving it time and again with these defeatist votes. Worse, what can one say about a party that basically has to resort to bribery to get their votes?

Marcie

UPDATE: Chalk it up to Hugh for the new nickname for the new majority in Congress BUT make sure you mark the response to this defeatist resolution to Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Romney's up first:

"Capitol Hill Democrats have once again proved their inability to make Washington work in the right manner.

"The Democrat Congress' maneuver to micromanage our military efforts from their offices on Capitol Hill, along with the fiscally deplorable action of loading up a wartime spending bill with pork barrel earmarks unrelated to our military's fight against terrorism has provided the American people with yet another example of the Washington mindset run amok.

"Democrats in Washington have established a dangerous policy that essentially provides the enemy a planning calendar with a date certain surrender. By voting for such a policy, they have jeopardized our chances for success and endangered the mission of establishing democracy and defeating the terrorists in Iraq.

"All Americans want our troops out of Iraq, but we should never do so in a way that would jeopardize American security. Setting a public timeline without consideration of future circumstances, as they may exist at that time, is reckless and irresponsible.

"I urge President Bush to veto this measure and send a clear message to Washington Democrats that they must not and will not undermine the efforts of the United States military."

Now, it's Rudy's turn, and while not as long as Governor Romney's blast, it's equally potent:

"I think it is a very big mistake to put a timeline on getting out of Iraq. It signals to your enemies what your plans are. I think in a war, you never tell your enemies what your plans are."

The antiwar, fever swamp cut and runners in the new Democrat majority should be ashamed of this sort of manuever, especially given the fact that it's sure to be vetoed. They lack the votes to override the president's seal of disapproval. Worse, it sends a clear message to the nation that these people were willing to do whatever it took -- loading the bill up with approximately $28 BILLION in pork and earmarks (by my lovely and intelligent wife's calculations) that have absolutely nothing to do with the war itself. The president said it was time to end this sort of spending back in January. I see that, as usual, the Democrats continue to act like little children ignoring the adults, and not listening to what they're told. ENOUGH partisan politics. This is a war. It's time America cals up these nuters and tells them to knock this off, or promise to make them suffer the consequences come November of 2008. That means tossing some of these worthless @$$ hats out of Congress once and for all if this is the way they wish to treat their office and their constituents who put them in office.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Talibanstan": A serious thorn in our side

Posted by on Friday, March 23, 2007 4:57:07 PM
 Running a little late today, and I'm about to zip out the door from work, but I thought I might turn readers onto this piece from TIME Magazine. It talks about a subject that both Marcie and I have dealt with, whcih is the continuing capitulation of Pakistan to the Taliban:

The residents of Dara Adam Khel, a gunsmiths' village 30 miles south of Peshawar, Pakistan, awoke one morning last month to find their streets littered with pamphlets demanding that they observe Islamic law. Women were instructed to wear all-enveloping burqas and men to grow their beards. Music and television were banned. Then the jihadists really got serious. These days, dawn is often accompanied by the wailing of women as another beheaded corpse is found by the side of the road, a note pinned to the chest claiming that the victim was a spy for either the Americans or the Pakistani government. Beheadings are recorded and sold on DVD in the area's bazaars. "It's the knife that terrifies me," says Hafizullah, 40, a local arms smith. "Before they kill you, they sharpen the knife in front of you. They are worse than butchers."

Stories like these are being repeated across the tribal region of Pakistan, a rugged no-man's-land that forms the country's border with Afghanistan--and that is rapidly becoming home base for a new generation of potential terrorists. Fueled by zealotry and hardened by war, young religious extremists have overrun scores of towns and villages in the border areas, with the intention of imposing their strict interpretation of Islam on a population unable to fight back. Like the Taliban in the late 1990s in Afghanistan, the jihadists are believed to be providing leaders of al-Qaeda with the protection they need to regroup and train new operatives. U.S. intelligence officials think that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may have found refuge in these environs. And though 49,000 U.S. and NATO troops are stationed just across the border in Afghanistan, they aren't authorized to operate on the Pakistani side. Remote, tribal and deeply conservative, the border region is less a part of either country than a world unto itself, a lawless frontier so beyond the control of the West and its allies that it has earned a name of its own: Talibanistan.

Since Sept. 11, the strategic hinge in the U.S.'s campaign against al-Qaeda has been Pakistan, handmaiden to the Taliban movement that turned Afghanistan into a sanctuary for bin Laden and his lieutenants. While members of Pakistan's intelligence services have long been suspected of being in league with the Taliban, the Bush Administration has consistently praised Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for his cooperation in rooting out and apprehending members of bin Laden's network. But the Talibanization of the borderlands--and their role in arming and financing insurgents in Afghanistan--has renewed doubts about whether Musharraf still possesses the will to face down the jihadists.

Those doubts are surfacing at a time when Musharraf confronts his biggest political crisis since grabbing power eight years ago. Since March 12, Pakistani streets have been the scene of clashes between police and thousands of lawyers and opposition activists outraged by Musharraf's decision to suspend the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, for alleged abuse of office. Musharraf's critics say the President is attempting to rig the system to ensure he stays in power. Their ire boiled over when Pakistani police raided a television station to prevent it from covering protests outside the Supreme Court. Some Pakistanis who have excused Musharraf's authoritarianism in the past now portray him as a jackbooted dictator. "I think he has ruined himself," says retired Lieut. General Hamid Gul, former director general of the Pakistani intelligence organization Inter-Services Intelligence. "He's not going to be able to placate the forces he has unleashed."

We have railed on about the stupid moves that Musharraf has made when it comes to the Taliban, and this is one of the problems in dealing with someone who is, in fact, more dictator than diplomat. In the end, our alliance with Musharraf might be one of the fatal missteps we make in this war. I have read reports showing that there are close to 200,000 Taliban fighters/jihadis living in that region, compared to the 50,000 or so US and NATO forces there.

Personally, I think it's about time we have a few words with Musharraf about this mess. If he won'tr deal with it, we're going to have to, and it's not going to be pleasant no matter which way it goes. But we can't let them continue to make attacks on our forces in Afghanistan, and then give up when they cross back over the border. A new strategy either has to be developed, or some serious presure has to be applied to Musharraf.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Seizes 15 British Sailors And Britain Protests?

Posted by on Friday, March 23, 2007 4:17:44 PM
 Protests? Me thinketh the world doth protest too much and acts too little:

Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf, British and U.S. officials said. Britain immediately protested the detentions, which come at a time of high tension between the West and Iran.

In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office: "He was left in no doubt that we want them back," Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said after the meeting.

A spokesman for the U.S. Navy, which operates off the Iraqi coast along with British forces, said Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible.
Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet said the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had radioed a British warship explaining that no harm had come to the 15 Britons and that they were seized because they were in Iranian waters. The British Defense Ministry said the Iranians took custody of the sailors and marines in Iraqi waters.

Aandahl said a "very limited exchange of communication" occurred between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy after it had intercepted the Royal Navy service members saying "that no harm had come to any personnel and that they were being taken to a place of safety."

The Iranians said they had captured the sailors and marines because they were operating inside Iranian territorial waters.

"The Royal Navy replied that they were well inside Iraqi territorial waters (and) that was the end of the conversation," Aandahl said.

Here is the "protest" I would give to the Iranians: Hand our sailors over now, or else suffer the consequences. That would include the explusion of any Iranians on Britain regardless of the visas they possesed, and quite possibly a muster of forces in the Gulf with preparations for possible airstrikes.

This act is simply unacceptable, and it is not wise to do right now with tensions as stressed as they are. Honestly, ladies and gentlemen, there is a reason why nations like North Korea and Iran act up, and that is because they believe that the West is too PC-ified to realy mount a solid resistance to these sorts of escapades. Thuis far, they would be proven correct. For an example of this analysis, we only need to look at the UN sanctions that were slapped on both nations.

And after Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad picked themselves up off the floor from laughing so hard ...

See what I mean? Forget protesting. Roll up the sleeves, drag out the claws, and show Iran that they cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of act.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A whoopsie moment for President Clinton: Check your wife before you speak out

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:05:04 PM
B-O-O H-O-O :

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that “it’s just not fair” the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.

Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, “I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,” but “to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.“

This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.”

The ex-president’s aggressive defense of his wife’s position revealed frustration in the Clinton camp over how the issue is playing into the already-overheated presidential campaign.

On a conference call with Hillraisers, Sen. Clinton’s biggest donors, which The Hill listened to after being provided the call-in information, the former president said there was a stark difference between those who voted for the Iraq resolution and those who wanted to go to war.In response to a question from one of the supporters on the phone about explaining Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote to undecided voters, the former president jumped in front of former Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, saying, “Let me answer this.”

He said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for “coercive inspections.” Clinton justified his wife’s refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing “coercive inspections to avoid conflict.”

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” Clinton said.

But President Clinton, if I may ask, what about your wife's stance regarding a permanent force of US military troops in Iraq?

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Sounds pretty permanent to us. Oops. Spin that one, big guy.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Conference Call With Bloggers Regarding "A Mormon In The White House?"

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:13:34 PM
  Hugh Hewitt participated in a blogger conference call today regarding his new book A Mormon In The White House?, of which both Thomas and I have read. One of those involved in the call was Matt Lewis, who wrote this about the call:

Hugh went on to say that he believes the public is now too sophisticated for scurrilous attacks to work. For example, he pointed out that the pictures of Rudy Giuliani in drag haven't hurt him. I asked Hugh why it was that attacks that used to work (think Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis, or even the Swift Boat ads), don't seem to be resonating, anymore. I asked: "What happened?"

"The people on this call happened!," he answered.

His point: The amount of information that the public consumes has increased exponentially. For this reason, the old paradigm no longer works.

That point is well-founded. Yes, Mr. Lewis states that such an ad may not resonate nationally, but locally, as in South Carolina, it may. That may indeed be true, but for the most part Hugh is correct. The electorate, with the advent of the alternative media, is no longer stumbling around int he dark, having to digest the MSM's gobbley-gook about candidates.

The old rules do not apply anymore, and there is enough proof of it already in this race. There are social conservatives that are ripping up both Rudy (for his pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-civil unions stances) and Mitt (for his Momonism), and there will always be detractors. We know this. We have witnessed this first-hand with those we know in the real world, and those we converse with on the Internet.

What is different now is that besides the electorate not being as dumb as many people believe, the candidates are also better prepared to deal with the sort of attacks that are going to come at them. Rudy has done a phenomenal job deflecting the criticism on his social positions. Mitt, in Hugh's book, points out that while people may question his religion, they cannot argue that he is a loving father and husband, and has been for some thirty-plus years. He also deflects the allegations that he would be "ruled" from Salt Lake City stating, with no ambiguity, that he would not expect or entertain any calls from the Mormon presidency with regard to national issues.

The old ways of attack are done. The only avenues that people have to go after candidates is through what they say. In 2004 John Kerry was assailed on three fronts. His record in Vietnam (which had no real bearing on the election other than the fact he was running on that record), his voting record and attendance in the Senate, and what he stated in campaign stops and the debates. And no offense, ladies and gentlemen, but he gave his critics more than enough firepower to finish him off.

With both Rudy and Mitt (I exclude the others right now because as of this moment they are not even close enough to the front-runners), they are not being cautious, per se, with how they handle the issues in front of them. Technically, they really do not have to address them now, completely. The primaries have not even started. What they have to do right now is present themselves to the voters, and both are doing a superb job of it. I know many wil say that Mitt is not even in this race, but that would be a costly mistake to overlook him.

The voters do not put their faith or futures in the hands of a congressman. They want a leader, not a compromiser. Both Rudy and Mitt were, and still are, leaders in a long tradition going back to Ronald Reagan. Both are strong on national defense. Both believe that there are issues that social conservatives are concerned about that originalist jurists can best deal with. Both are fiscal hawks, and both have had success in turning around liberal bastions. That record is what resonates to the electorate, not a man who dresses in drag for a joke, or another's faith that some disregard as not being mainstream enough.

Again, the old world is gone. Dead and buried, and thank God. That is not to say that some sort of "gotcha" politics will not be prevalent in the upcoming election. But that is saying that such attacks will be more on the local level than the national level. If they do rear their ugly heads in national ads, the electorate is likely to ignore them in favor of what they know about the candidates themselves.

Marcie

UPDATE: Welcome Hugh Hewitt readers!! Feel free to leave your thoughts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems in disarray in the House; GOP forces a retreat

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:59:52 PM
 It was only a matter of time before the Democrats lost control of things in Congress, but The Crypt at Politico is reporting just that:

House Democrats pulled a bill to grant voting rights to Washington, D.C., after Republicans offered a motion that would repeal the gun ban for the District.

The move is a clear signal that Democrats have lost control of the House floor on the voting rights issue after minority Republicans presented the Democratic majority with a politically unpalatable motion that their conservative members would be forced to support for fear of angering the gun rights community.

Fifty-two Democrats voted with Republicans on a similar measure to repeal the gun ban in 2004.

That would be more than enough support for Republicans to add a repeal to the voting rights bill - something a majority of Democrats would vehemently oppose.

Republicans have taken great pride in offering motions to recommit during their time in the minority, an often over-looked legislative procedure that has allowed them to amend various bills on the House floor.

Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, who served as chair when the House began consideration of the motion, called the postponement at the request of the Democratic leadership, saying the speaker has complete discretion to postpone consideration of any legislation at any time.

Democrats scrambled to remedy the situation on the floor but were eventually forced to pull the bill to begin debate on a controversial wartime funding measure that is expected on the floor Friday.

Republicans could offer a similar procedural motion to slow consideration of that measure whenever it comes to the floor.

The House was expected to approve the bill to grant Washington, DC, a vote in the House by a wide margin, with several Republicans expected to vote in favor of the legislation.

Call it politics if you'd like to, but when the other side isn't playing by the established rules, there are times where certain measures are called for. Call it dirty pool. Call it underhanded. I call it leveling the playing field. The Democrats started in January with a promise to curtail the ability of the GOP to add amendments on the floor. The GOP has responded, knowing ful well that if they don't fight now, that their chances of retaking Congress in 2008 would be less than none.

The issue of the voting rights is neither here nor there. While DC is definitely a part of the nation, there was no provision instaled in the Constitution to give them such representation. Congress, as a whole, made decisions for DC. But with the recent DC Circuit Court decision regarding firearms, this was bound to come up. We first heard about this late last year that a measure was being bounced around the House about giving DC a vote there.

The firearms issue is going to be important. Not just within Congress, but in the USSC, as well. If they accept the appeal, it'll be interesting to see how they rule. (I'm still hedging bets that it'll be 5-4 affirming the DC Court's decision.) But this piece isn't about the legislation or the debate. It's about tactics, and the one utilized by the GOP has shown that the Democrats don't control things as much as they thought.

Of course, we've been waiting to see the Democrats in such a mess. Since the election, these crazy kids have been proclaiming how much power they have. They've been boasting about al the things they'l pass while in power. And since January, they've done exaclty squat. Each war resolution or bil is shot down (either by a concerted effort by the GOP, or by the Blue Dogs). Every time something like the voting rights issue pops up, i.e., something of importance, they're being blocked. It's not that our side doesn't want the debate or the bill. It's the fact that the Democrats keep trying to freeze our side out, and their game plan isn't working. It's failing miserably. It's good to see our side fighting for once. This has been a long time coming. The only thing that bothers us is we only seem to fight when we're in the penalty box, and we can't seem to play with a lead.

That's no way to run the show in Congress. Hopefully being in the minority now will teach our side how to fight when we regain the Congress.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Breaking News: London Authorities Arrest Three Terror Suspects Likely Involved In 7/7 Bombings

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:55:15 PM
 Breaking News, ladies and gentlemen, from CNN. It seems that London authorities have arrested three men in conection with the London bombings on 7/7. The news comes courtesy of Captain Ed:

Three men have been arrested in connection with the July 7, 2005, bomb attacks on the London transport network, British police said in a statement.

Two men, aged 23 and 30, were held at Manchester airport in northern England shortly before 1 p.m. GMT on Thursday as they were due to catch a flight to Pakistan, New Scotland Yard said.

A third man, aged 26, was arrested hours later at a house in the nearby city of Leeds. Police were searching five addresses in the Leeds area as well as a flat and business premises in east London, the statement said.

"The three men were arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000," it read.

The three were being taken to custody at a central London police station where counter-terrorism officers were waiting to interview them.

Fifty-two people -- as well as the four bombers -- died and more than 700 were injured in the 2005 bombings aboard three London Underground trains and a bus during morning rush hour.

Three of the bombers -- Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, and Hasib Hussain, 18 -- came from the Tipton area of Leeds. The fourth, Jamaican-born Jermaine Lindsay, 19, was raised in southern England.

"We are determined to follow the evidence wherever it takes us to identify any other person who may have been involved, in any way, in the terrorist attacks," the police said.

Chief Superintendent Mark Millsom of West Yorkshire Police said described operations surrounding the arrests and searches as "low key."

"We haven't involved any armed officers, we haven't had to close off any streets," he said in a television interview.

Only one other person has been detained previously in investigations into the London bombings, but he was released.

This is good news coming out of London. With a little hope, and some worthwhile praying, they will locate the others in connection with this heinous attack. Of course, Captain Ed asks why they were heading back to Pakistan, and he gives a prety good answer. Maybe they were heading back in preparation for another attack. If so, then this is a coup for Scotland Yard, and England's anti-terror efforts. Fifty-two people died in the 7/7 atacks, hardly the sort of body count that our enemy likes to see. 9/11 was more their cup of tea, no pun intended.

And is it any wonder that their destination was Pakistan given the earlier mistake and current deal struck by Musharraf with the Taliban. Pakistan is slowly becoming a new safe haven for the jihadis. We would honestly not be surprised to learn that these three men were connected to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and the arrests likely came just as these guys were about to slip through the fingers of the London authorities.

Again, this was a great move by England. They nabed the guys that helped carry out the bombings and very well may have prevented another attack in making the arrests.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Kennedy/McCain alliance on immigration bill is over, at least for now

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:19:24 PM
 What to my wondering eyes did appear, but a pandering candidate abandoning his peers ...

OK, so my poetry sucks, but the point is well made by the Boston Globe today that John McCain has walked away from his partnership with Ted Kennedy on their immigration amnesty bill:

Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain have all but abandoned plans to cosponsor a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year, as McCain faces tough questions from conservatives on the presidential campaign trail about his support for immigrants' rights.

Kennedy, frustrated by the slow progress of his negotiations with McCain, is instead considering filing a bill on his own, modeled largely on the measure endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. McCain is continuing to talk to Kennedy about immigration proposals, but the Arizona Republican has not committed to supporting Kennedy's approach.

The erosion of the unlikely political partnership that brought the liberal Kennedy and the conservative McCain together on immigration suggests a tough road ahead for passing a sweeping immigration measure this year. Further complicating efforts to find consensus, a group of Republicans is working with the White House to draft an alternative bill.

McCain's hesitancy about joining Kennedy on the same issue they worked together on in the previous Congress also speaks to an emerging dynamic in the Republican presidential race.
McCain has encountered anger from hard-line immigration foes on the campaign trail, particularly over an aspect in last year's bill that would have allowed most undocumented immigrants to work toward citizenship. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, one of McCain's rivals for the GOP nomination, has been especially sharp in his condemnation of McCain's approach to immigration.

Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is supporting Romney's candidacy, said McCain appears to be learning that Republicans won't accept proposals that allow undocumented immigrants to gain legal status until the borders are secured.

"That's an important position for the Republican Party," DeMint said. "We're certainly not going to start off with any kind of expanded visa program, or any kind of normalization of those who are here."

This shows that McCain knows where his primary weak spot is on his platform. Immigration reform, especially enforcement, is a national security issue. It's a fiscal issue, too, as we are paying millions upon millions of dollars for health care, welfare, and incarceration of illegal aliens here in America. Normalization can come AFTER we tighten and reform enforcement of the borders. We MUST have control of our borders so we know who's coming in and leaving, and what their intentions are in our nation.

McCain has rightly taken blow after blow on this issue, and each one is wel-deserved. The base isn't too happy with him playing the game with Kennedy, and they know damn well that any deal struck with the liberal senior senator from Masschusetts isn't going to be a good one. I know a lot of people thought that him teaming up with Russ Feingold to do campaign finance reform couldn't be all that bad. Yeah, right. Until we got knocked out of our chairs when McCain and Feingold thought it was cute to curtail our freedom of speech in an election cycle.

I hope this criticism does some good. I doubt it'll change his mind, but it could cause him to screw up again and put another stake in his attempt to become president.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CODEPINK plans on seizing Pelosi's office

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:30:30 PM
 Ever wonder how nuts the fever swamp is? According to The Hill, they're crazy like a fox:

(HT: K-Lo at NRO's Corner)

Anti-war group CODEPINK is planning to take over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office at 4:00 pm, the group said.

Protesters plan to play “Pin the war on the Donkey” to show their frustration with the Democratic leadership’s inaction of ending the war in Iraq.

CODEPINK is expecting arrests.

OK, the nutters are crazy. It's not bad enough that they decided to camp outside of Pelosi's home in San Francisco, but now they want to seize her office, too? Can anyone in their right mind tell us why the Democrats try to pander to these people? And to counter CODEPINK's allegation that the Democrats have acted on the war, what do they call the dozen or so resolutions proposed by both House and Senate Democrats that keep getting shot down.

NEWSFLASH for CODEPINK: This isn't a dictatorship you morons. There are TWO parties in Congress, and if one can stop the resolutions from coming up, all the better. If CODEPINK wants to live in a dictatorship where one group has absolute control, may we suggest a move to Iran or North Korea, perhaps? We'd even be willing to chip in for the one-way ticket.

The fever swamp has got to get it through it's thick skull that it doesn't control the party. The Democrats have leaders (supposedly) that set the agenda. And for some in the party, namely the Blue Dog Democrats, that agenda is hazardous to their political careers. Why? Because they know the truth, which is that the majority of America still believes in the troops and their mission. The polls blown out of proportion or deceitfully displayed by the media are BS. If over half of the nation were truly up in arms, as the media continues to p*mp, then where were they in DC over St. Patty's Day weekend when the Gathering of Eagles took place? There were what, maybe 1000 antiwar crackpots there?

The leaders of the Democrat party -- Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. -- should be forced to explain to their base why they give these poor slobs the time of day. They represent a tiny proportion of the Democrat base, and yet the leaders give these people more credence than the mom-and-pop Democrats concerned about important hings, like national security and fiscal responsibility. (Speaking of fiscal responsibility, maybe they'd like to explain why they're virtually bribing House members to jump on board the newest defeatist legislation that is destined to fail when the president vetoes the damn thing.)

Let them try to seize her office. I'd pay money to see the look on her face when they do. Maybe, just maybe, it'l sink into that empty head of hers that these aren't the people her party should be pandering to.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Charges to be dropped on Duke lacrosse players in non-rape case

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:11:28 PM
 We'll follow suit in cautioning people to take this report with a grain of salt despite those claiming to be "in the know." FOX News is reporting that the charges against the Duke lacrosse players will be dropped within the next few days, maybe as soon as tomorrow:

(HT: Allah at Hot Air)

The remaining charges against three Duke University lacrosse players originally indicted for rape may be dropped sometime within the next few days, according to a report.

Inside Lacrosse Magazine writer Paul Caulfield told FOX News on Thursday that several sources have revealed to him that the assault and attempted kidnapping charges still pending against Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J., will soon be dropped.

Caulfield said his sources include more than just attorneys for the defense…

There have been rumors that the families of Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans may be considering civil lawsuits against Nifong, Duke or the state if it turns out the accuser’s story doesn’t pan out and Nifong is found to be guilty of mishandling the case.

“This is something that will wait in the wings. Once the criminal case is dropped, we are going to see this and I believe we’ll see it quite quickly,” said Caulfield, a former prosecutor.

Nifong is facing some serious repercussions from the fiasco he made out of this case. He purposefully withheld information from the players' defense team that would have exonerated them. He dragged out the case without getting a solid statement fromt he accuser; an accuser, I might add, who continualy kept changing her story, and has now admitted to the new prosecutors that she's not even sure she was raped.

Nifong dragged these students' names through the mud, and I hope their families do file a civil suit against him. But that won't be the icing on the cake. That comes in his next appearance before the state bar to determine whether his license to practice law will be suspended, or completely revoked. I'm pulling for the latter.

Marcie is working towards becoming a lawyer, following in her brother's footsteps, and it's idiots like Nifong that give the profession a bad name. This entire case -- from the start of it up until he relinquished it -- has been purely political. His breach of ethics deserves the harshest punishment possible. Had he kept the DNA results under wraps, he would have been prosecuting three innocent young men for a crime that was nonexistent. Good ridance to bad rubbish. I hope the families wreck his reputation the same way he did.

These students won't get their reputations back so easily, and there wil always be a question mark over their heads even if the charges are dropped. I hope Nifong's happy with himself. What a piece of garbage.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Party Of Cut And Run Is Now The Party Of The Divided, "Slouching" Towards Insanity

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:53:57 PM
 Word is starting to trickle out of the Congress that the Democrats are indeed divided over Iraq. This comes as no surprise as the Blue Dog Democrats have reined in Speaker Pelosi and her underhanded attempts to kill the efforty and the funding. Captain Ed picked it up from The New York Times:

Representative Dan Boren is a Democrat, but after visiting Iraq last week he announced a decision that puts him at odds with his party’s leaders: he intends to vote against their plan to set a deadline for troops to leave Iraq.

“A timeline, in effect, is cutting off the funds,” said Mr. Boren, a conservative second-term lawmaker whose territory covers the eastern swath of Oklahoma, from the bottom of Kansas to the top of Texas. “That is not the solution.”

His views have barely caused a ripple in his home district, but the House Democratic leadership has been working to keep Mr. Boren’s views from spreading through the party’s jittery conservative wing. At the same time, the leaders are trying to persuade liberals to support the legislation, even though it does not end the war nearly fast enough for their liking.

As the House prepares to vote Friday on a $124 billion Iraq spending bill, which calls for American troops to come home before Labor Day of 2008, an intensely private and anguishing debate has played out for many lawmakers through handwritten letters, telephone calls and conversations. Dozens of representatives have traveled to Iraq, even as antiwar activists staged protests in their district offices or at their homes.

The consternation among Democrats on the left and the right has made the outcome of the vote far less certain than leaders had hoped, particularly after respected figures like Representative John Lewis, a liberal Georgia Democrat, declared his opposition, saying, “I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.”

In the days before the vote, Democrats said they were short of the 218 votes needed to pass the legislation. Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, conceded, “If you are asking me, do I have 218 people that I know are definite yeses right this minute, the answer to that is no.”

Even as the House grappled with the Iraq strategy on Wednesday, Senate Democrats said they would try to revise a bill calling on President Bush to withdraw most combat troops from Iraq within a year. A similar measure failed last week.

The Iraq debate is scheduled to begin Thursday afternoon on the House floor, but the final vote was delayed by a day to give leaders more time to build support for a measure that has proved to be one of the most significant tests of the new Democratic Congress. The debate over influencing the administration’s war strategy has roiled the party’s caucus, particularly the newly elected members who came to Washington on a wave of discontent over the war.

Representative Carol Shea-Porter, a New Hampshire Democrat who defeated a two-term Republican last fall by waging an antiwar campaign, said the Iraq debate had proved to be more distressing — and complicated — than she had imagined. Two weeks ago, as she suited up in body armor before climbing into a Black Hawk helicopter to fly into Baghdad, she said she began to plainly see both views, but wanted to support the troops and bring a responsible end to the war.

When she returned to her district last weekend and told constituents that she planned to support the Iraq legislation because it had a specific troop withdrawal date, she said she encountered “no murmuring, but screaming.” Even her family was furious about her decision, she said. “I was pretty clear that I was against this war, and it is a shock for people to hear me say that I’m supporting the supplement,” Ms. Shea-Porter said Wednesday. “I would have preferred it to happen faster, but I’m not a Congress of one.”

There are few votes to spare on either side of the party’s divide, with many members of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus ideologically opposed to legislation they believe would fuel the war for at least another year and a half. Many conservative Democrats regard the measure as one that would tie the hands of the president, a notion that does not sit well in their districts.

They do not have the votes. The liberals in the House and Senate are starting to see that their platform of cut-and-run was not what swept them into power in November, but rather the consistent failings of the GOP on issues other than the war. We have been repeating that sentiment since November, and the Democrats are just now beginning to realize it. (That is all right, it has taken a few conservatives to come to that realization, as well, though the round-heeled ones in Congress stil seem to miss that point.)

The Blue Dog Democrats are the ones in charge in the House. They have stopped every effort launched by the Pelosi Antiwar Wing of the party, and it started with slapping Jack Murtha down repeatedly for his attempts to undermine the war effort. And while there is most certainly some stronmg-arm tactics being executed by the Democrats in the House, they would be wise to knock it off. If they keep it up against the Blue Dogs, those supposed allies will not be there when the Democrats need them most. They were elected from fairly conservative districts, and I doubt their constituents would appreciate their votes against the war or the troops.

This is also a lesson for the Democrats as to which side of the bread the butter is on. It is NOT with the antiwar nuts on the fringe that are staging protests outside of their homes in their districts. It is with the general John and Jane Q. Public Democrats that swept them into power. The antiwar fringe thought they were the ones that pulled this of, and nothing could be further from the truth.

It is, as Thomas pointed out yesterday in his call to Hugh Hewitt's show, as if John McCain thinks he can win in '08 without the base, and only his centrist and moderate voters. It will not happen. For the Democrats -- especially the Nancy Pelosi liberal wing -- they need everyone, not just the moonbats. The moonbats are disdained by their party's base as insane throwbacks that obviously do not grasp the gravity of the times.

Professor Glenn Reynolds makes the observation that the Democrats are so desperate to get this issue off the table for 2008 that they are literaly trying to bribe members of their caucus into supporting the measure via pork in the legislation. The pork within this bill is already reaching fevered proportions, as Gateway Pundit notes. (By my quick number crunching just from what is up on Gateway Pundit's site, that is just over $28 billion in pork bribes for votes. THAT should show you how desperate the Democrats are!) Professor Reynolds is indeed correct: The issue of the war and national security is so damaging to the Democrats that they want this issue off the table for 2008. But it will not happen that way because the war will still be going on regardless of how much they try to cut-and-run, AND their plans run contrary to Hillary's.

In the New York Times last week, Hillary boasted that a permanent US presence would remain in Iraq if she were elected. That sentiment apparently does not jive with the antiwar fringe in the House, and it shows even more division within their party. Rather than a party untied to do better for America, they are more like a bunch of schoolkids arguing over playground equipment. Of course, with the level of apparent immaturity within the Democrat party, would we expect anything less?

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chrlie Hebdo Editor in France Cleared Of Charges

Posted by on Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:10:28 PM
 I never thought I would be saying "three cheers for France," but I am this morning as word has come down that the editor of a French satirical paper, on trial for his supposed "Islamophobia," has been found not guilty. Allah @ Hot Air has the scoop, and CNN has the skinny:

A French court on Thursday ruled in favor of a satirical weekly that had printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said the publication incited hatred against Muslims.

The court said the cartoons published by the weekly Charlie Hebdo were covered by freedom of expression laws and did not constitute an attack on Islam in general but fundamentalists.

The cartoons, originally published in 2005 by a Danish daily, provoked violent protests in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that left 50 people dead. Several European publications reprinted them as an affirmation of free speech.

The public prosecutor had argued the cartoons were protected by freedom of speech and recommended that the case be dismissed.

With France's presidential election only a month away, the court case has been overshadowed by election politics. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative frontrunner, his centrist rival Francois Bayrou and Socialist party leader Francois Hollande have all spoken out in defense of the weekly.

Denis Prager discussed this story yesterday ion the last hour of his show. He pointed out that there were quite a few papers across Europe that were willing to print the Mohammed cartoons that sparked outrage among militant Muslims around the world, but not one US outlet wanted to do that. Not the New York Times. Not the Boston Globe. Not the LA Times or the WaPo. The alternative media reprinted them over and over again. Michelle Malkin actually led that charge, which included a "blogburst" of unparalleled proportions.

French Muslims were outraged over the cartoon published by the editor of Charlie Hebdo, and demanded he be put on trial. Accroding to the Wall Street Jopurnal piece in yesterday's edition (cited by Mr. Prager but I am unable to locate it online), Chirac had a hand in bringing this case to trial. Luckily, for free speech rights and freedom of the press rights, he was dealt another blow today.

As Mr. Prager pointed out yesterday, the press abroad is far more courageous tham the ones here in America. They took the risk to publish those cartoons because the furor that erupted over them was news. NEWS! I wonder if the MSM over here understands what that word means? They spent how long on the Ann Nicole Smith story while real news was being reported by the alternative media? They spent day after day breathelessly reporting on whether Brittney Spears was in or out of rehab. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not "news" that they should be covering. Let the gossip hacks take care of that. Let Oprah, and the windbag Rosie deal with those stories. The MSM's job is to cover the real news. But all too often they take the tabloid route rather than the right path of objectively reporting news and events throughout the day. Maybe they think they can play it safe with that sort of reporting, but it does no service to the news consumer.

I applaud the court in France for handing down this decision. The moment any court is allowed to decide what is an is not "hate speech" (an uterrly retarded charge to begin with that should be struck from our lexicon in general) then you have let the genie out of the bottle and there will be NO WAY of putting it back.

Marcie

UPDATE: I located the WSJ article Marcie was searching for. It's right here if readers would like to see how ridiculous this whole mess was.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Threatens To Move Forward On Their Nuclear Program Illegally

Posted by on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:40:48 PM
 We could not sign off on the site for this evening without one final news story,observed by those @ the Corner, and from Bloomberg News

Iran may undertake atomic work outside of international regulations if the United Nations Security Council insists that the Islamic Republic ceases uranium enrichment, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said.

``Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations,'' Khamenei said. ``If they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions, and will do so,'' the supreme leader said in a speech at Mashhad, Iran's holiest city, to mark the Iranian new year.

Excerpts of today's address were televised on the Qatar- based al-Jazeera television channel, translated from Farsi into Arabic. Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, didn't elaborate on his reference to ``illegal actions.''

This is supposed to be news? Are they not already violating UN sanctions by continuing their enrichment? Are they not thumbing their nose at the world, and in essence, already working on the program illegally, and in a clandestine fashion. We think so, and so