The Discerning Texan

As leaders of this great nation we should be constantly asking ourselves how our actions help us succeed in this war. The Republican Party has made it clear that our goal is success in Iraq. But Democrats have decided to allow the extreme liberal group, MoveOn.org, to become the megaphone for their party and lower the debate to uncharted depths. MoveOn.org has labeled General Petraeus a liar and a traitor to his country, a betrayer of the public trust.

Republicans have condemned this ad and all that is suggests. Democrats have allowed, and tacitly encouraged, this extreme liberal group to define what their party stands for and they are doing nothing to stop it. That silence you hear from the other side of the aisle is because of one simple fact: because ‘they’ are one in the same -- Moveon.org and the Democrat Party.

"We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” Those are the now infamous words spoken by MoveOn.org founder Eli Pariser when speaking about the Democrat Party after the 2004 elections. “We own it.” That message was clear when Senate Democrats objected on the floor of the Senate to a resolution to denounce the despicable ad calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor. Make no mistake -- MoveOn.org owns the Democrat Party.

“We bought it.” And how did MoveOn.org buy the Democrat Party? Campaign donations, of course. MoveOn.org has routed hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars to Democrats and they show no signs of slowing down. Congressman Tom Allen of Maine has accepted over $250,000 in donations through MoveOn.org alone. So it’s not surprising that Tom Allen has been deafeningly silent on this issue. Apparently the prospect of campaign funds is enough of an incentive for Democrats to stand idly by while a respected General is maligned before the country he has committed his life to protecting.

Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left

Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left, The Surge

Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus

A grownup has stood up in the Senate to denounce the “Betray Us” ad by MoveOn.org. The Democratic Party should be ashamed that it took Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah to say what has to be said — and to defend the honor of a man who was unanimously appointed by the Senate.

A taste of what he said:

“Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General, and anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits, knows that these are dangerous and unwarranted allegations. However, there might be a silver lining to this slander. Libel, really, because it was printed The New York Times. Now, all of America understands MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots of our society. These people are nuts and they don’t care who they hurt, they don’t care who they smear they don’t care who they libel. Politics is more important than anything else and power is the most important anything of all.”

Every single one of the 49 Democratic Senators who voted for him but refuses to stand up to the Move On cowards — and Billionaire Wes Boyd who finances this front group — should be ashamed.

Support the troops? Then support the No. 1 Troop — General David Petraeus.

The video is here and here.

UPDATE: Rudy rips Dems for not ripping MoveOn.

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Honor, Petreaus, The Surge

Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Sedition, Treachery, Treason, Unbridled Partisanship

Labels: America War Support, Attack Politics, Cartoons, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Petreaus, The Surge

IN THE SPRING of 1954, the US Senate convened hearings at the instigation of Senator Joseph McCarthy to press his anticommunist investigations into the Department of the Army. The hearings were broadcast live on television, and the American public was able to witness firsthand the tactics McCarthy used to intimidate his foes. At a critical moment in the hearings, a key governmental witness, Army lawyer Joseph Welch, rose to defend one of the junior Army lawyers whose career, Welch alleged, McCarthy had destroyed. Welch turned to McCarthy and memorably intoned: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"It was remarkable political theater and historians credit it with breaking the back of McCarthy's attack on the Army, which in turn broke the back of his anticommunist efforts. In short order, McCarthy's allies abandoned him, he was discredited, and he left the Senate in disgrace.

We may be about to witness a McCarthy-Army-Welch moment in the debate over Iraq. This time, the role of McCarthy is played by MoveOn.org, a liberal political group that launched its own attack on a respected US Army figure. In yesterday's New York Times, the day that General David Petraeus would give his long-awaited, congressionally mandated report on his military activities in Iraq, MoveOn.org ran a full-page advertisement that accused Petraeus of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without evidence, that Petraeus is not going to give his honest, professional assessment of the situation in Iraq but instead will be "cooking the books" to curry favor with the Bush White House. The heart of the advertisement is a juvenile pun on Petraeus's name: General Betray Us?

The MoveOn.org ad is vicious, and would garner comment even if it were merely one more primal scream in the coarse blogosphere debate over Iraq. But it is not an angry e-mail or blog entry. It is a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his credibility as possible so that his military advice could be more easily rejected by antiwar members of Congress.

The attack was part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the Iraq war, and was foreshadowed by an unnamed Democratic senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful special interests, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.

Precisely because it is so vicious, so public, and so deliberate, the attack on Petraeus cannot be ignored by either side in the Iraq debate. Supporters of the war are duty-bound, like Joseph Welch, to rise and ask of war opponents, "Have you left no sense of decency?" Antiwar members of Congress, like Senator McCarthy's allies, are obliged to answer.

Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.

Well, with one exception. MoveOn.org, the Democratic activist group, bought space in the New York Times yesterday to accuse General Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House." The ad transmutes the general's name into "General Betray Us."

"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse.

MoveOn.org calls itself a "progressive" political group, but it is in fact drawn from the hard left of American politics and a pedigree that sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition. Their Web-based group is new to the political scene, but its politics are not so new. More surprising and troubling are the formerly liberal institutions and politicians who now share this political ethos.

[...]

Can this really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.

Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.

Labels: America War Support, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Nutroots, Petreaus

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.

One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.

We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.

Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels.

Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas.

Additionally, in what may be the most significant development of the past 8 months, the tribal rejection of Al Qaeda that started in Anbar Province and helped produce such significant change there has now spread to a number of other locations as well.

Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve. ...

LIVEBLOGGING THE PETRAEUS TESTIMONY, with extra snark toward the BBC's coverage. And lots more at The Tank.

Plus, threat of civil war in Iraq has been averted, according to Maliki. Further background, with charts and numbers, here.

And read this, too. Best quote: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'" Nice to know these folks have the courage of their convictions. . . .

UPDATE: Silencing Petraeus! Well, the mike didn't work, which the Limbaughs and Hannitys will have fun with. Plus this observation: "So you think technology is bad in Iraq? The U.S. House of Representatives can't get the commanding general a working mic in Washington, D.C. . . . Completely embarrassing." Video here. And this: "If this were a hearing or speech in Iraq, this would be a mocking example of how badly things are going there, how inept the infrastructure and the people who run it are. But it's not Iraq, it's Ike Skelton's committee."

Plus, trying to pretend it's July.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Full Petraeus transcript and slides, here. Further thoughts here.

And regarding that anonymous Democratic Senator who wants outside groups to do the name-calling, a reader emails:

What I find particularly interesting about the good Senator's position is that the Senate confirmed Petraeus by a vote of 81-0. Not one single Senator voted against putting him in charge of the campaign in Iraq. And the plans to "surge" more troops into the fight had already been announced, so they can't even claim "if we knew then what we know now".

Indeed.

Mario Loyola concludes:

So the bombshell is in. Because the surge has been so successful in meeting its objectives, General Petraeus recommends a drawdown of 25 percent of the combat brigades in Iraq by next summer, and expects to continue drawing down after that.

Since this is what the Democrats have been asking for, they must now shift their position, and insist that the drawdown be deeper and faster. This is the lesson of the Vietnam period. The Nixon administration often announced troop withdrawals in excess of what the Democrats had called for. Weeks later, the Democrats would conclude that the withdrawals were not nearly deep enough, or rapid enough, and press for more.

Notice the pickle that the Democrats are in, however — the difference between this and Vietnam. Petraeus recommends a massive drawdown because in his view we are winning and the surge troops won't be needed for much longer. But the Democrats have no choice but to dispute the premise of this recommendation — absurdly arguing, by implication, the troops are needed, but the cause is hopeless so we should withdraw anyways.

The fact of the matter is that between the desires of their base and the increasingly clear progress in Iraq, the Democrats have an almost impossible communications problem. It is going to interesting to see how they negotiate it.

Yep, they have a problem all right:

I must say that I sympathize with the bind that Democratic leaders are in somewhat. Defeatism is forced upon them by their base. That's why they have no choice but but to insist that Iraq is going disastrously badly, that it was all a mistake, and that we should get out now. Where they have no choice but to acknowledge that progress has been made, they must insist at all costs that President Bush's policies have had nothing to do with it. It is a matter of political reality. Their base will throw them back into the minority if they say anything else. Chuck Schumer's recent talking point — that progress has come in spite of the surge, not because of it — is something he has little choice but to say, no matter how little he believes it.

You can't acknowledge that things are going better in Iraq without implicitly acknowledging that the president was right after all. The electoral center, which gave the Dems their majority, is exceedingly fickle. They elected the president in '04 because they thought we could still in Iraq, then turned around and elected the Dems in '06, because they stopped believing it. If the president was right after all, then they might as well go back to supporting the president. The would be the end of the Democratic majority, and possibly the end of their chances in '08.

The Democrats problem stems from the fact that their base is composed of two groups that fundamentally do not share the same view of American foreign policy or of the war on terror. On the one hand, you have people who once supported the war, and on the other, the people who were always against it. Those two groups agree about only one thing now, which is that the Iraq war has been a disaster and we should get out as soon as possible. Until recently that view was held by a majority of Americans, which is what translated into the democratic majority.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the progress in Iraq is largely undeniable, and the American people are starting to believe it. For the first time in a long time, a majority of Americans believes both that we can win in Iraq and that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. That, of course, is the essence of the Republican platform on Iraq.

Consequently, Democratic-party leaders are faced with Hobson's choice. They must play the pessimist's part – it is the only way to maintain their majority. Anything else is political suicide for them. They are irretrievably invested in defeat. They therefore have to deny that we are making progress, no matter how obvious that progress is — and no matter how relieved they are, deep down inside, as Americans, that we are making it.

Sucks to be them...

Labels: Congress, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Petreaus, The Surge, US Senate

DT, it is pretty damn obvious that Hsu did not make all this money from a lemonaid stand on the corner. And if a person is making that kind of money in the garment industry (my business for 15 years) that he can give $1.3 mil in just a few years to political causes, he had to be making a whole like more.

I checked my resources and found no listing for Hsu in any of my garment vendor data. None. And I have a book of vendors that include fabric, notions, labels, importers, jobbers, production (sweat) shops, shippers, etc. Nothing. He did not exist in the garment world.

So how does a man with no clear business write a check for $2,000,000.00? Where did he get that kind of dough?

I will say it again. Pressure should be brought on the Paws with a promise of a long vacation at Club Fed if they don't turn a dime on Hsu. As well as the Lee family.

Do I think there is a common thread in all of this? Yes, and it leads right to the PRC and Beijing.

The human comedy is not to be disdained. Nonetheless, after listening to the post-arrest audio tape of Craig’s interview with Sergeant Dave Karsnia, I find myself inclining toward Henry Kissinger’s pronouncement on the Iran/Iraq war: It’s a shame they both can’t lose. As it happens, I passed by the very same men’s room at the Lindbergh Terminal only a couple of months ago. I didn’t go in, however. My general philosophy on public restrooms was summed up by the late Derek Jackson, the Oxford professor and jockey, in his advice to a Frenchman about to visit Britain. “Never go to a public lavatory in London,” warned Professor Jackson. “I always pee in the street. You may be fined a few pounds for committing a nuisance, but in a public lavatory you risk two years in prison because a policeman in plain clothes says you smiled at him.”

Just so. Sergeant Karsnia is paid by the police department to sit in a stall in the men’s room all day, like a spider waiting for the flies. The Baron von Richthoven of the Minneapolis Bathroom Patrol has notched up a phenomenal number of kills and knows what to look for — the tapping foot in the adjoining stall, a hand signal under the divider. Did you know that tapping your foot in a bathroom was a recognized indicator that a criminal act is about to occur? Don’t take your i-Pod in with you! [...]

What else is a giveaway that you’re a creep and a pervert seeking loveless anonymous sex? Well, according to Sergeant Karsnia, when the Senator entered the stall, he placed his wheelie bag against the door, which (according to the official complaint) “Sgt Karsnia’s experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall”.

No doubt. But, if you use the men’s room at the airport, where are you meant to put your carry-on? There’s not many other places in a bathroom stall other than against the door, unless Minneapolis is planning on mandating overhead bins in every cubicle. In happier times, one would have offered some cheery urchin sixpence to keep an eye on one’s bags. But today if you go to the airport bathroom and say to some lad, “Would you like to take care of my wheelie for five minutes?”, you’ll be looking at 30 years in the slammer.

I’ve no doubt Senator Craig went to that bathroom looking for sex. Listen to the tape of his encounter with Sergeant Karsnia and then imagine, as Jonah Goldberg suggested, how the conversation would go if Senators McCain or Webb had been in that stall and were accused of brushing shoes with the flatfoot. Not being privy to the codes of the privy, it would take ‘em 15 minutes even to figure out what Sarge was accusing ‘em of and, when it became clear, the conversation would erupt in a blizzard of asterisks and, shortly thereafter, fists. Instead, Senator Craig copped a plea. Because of that, he should disappear from public life as swiftly as possible and embrace full time the anonymity he cherishes in his sexual encounters. Not, as the left urges, on grounds of “hypocrisy” — because he’s a “family values” politician who opposes “gay marriage” yet trawls for rough trade in men’s rooms. A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society. It’s quite possible, on the one hand, to be opposed to the legalization of prostitution yet, on the other, to pull your hat down over your brow every other Tuesday and sneak off to the cat house on the other side of town. Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them. The Left gives the impression that a Republican senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, “You’re right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill.” ...

Today some Republicans pat themselves on the back for their “courageous” stand against liberal charges of hypocrisy as they were early in their denunciation of Craig. Now, these would be the same liberals who show routinely their hypocrisy embracing Bill Clinton (accused of rape), Barney Frank (accused of allowing his home to be used for male prostitution), and the late Gerry Studds (who had sex repeatedly with a seventeen-year-old page). These Republicans fear the “culture of corruption” label the liberals have assigned them and aren’t quite sure how to respond to it. Mostly, they refuse to fire back by highlighting the numerous examples of demonstrable sleaze involving William Jefferson (alleged bribe), Alan Mollohan (alleged self-dealing), John Murtha (earmarks related to his brother), Dianne Feinstein (her husband profiting from military contracts), Hillary Clinton (Norman Hsu, et al), and, of course, the aforementioned Clinton, Frank, and Studds examples.

There is indeed a culture of corruption, and it extends well beyond any single politician. It swirls around big government. It always has and it always will. It has become institutionalized in many ways. And that culture of corruption celebrates clever word games used by unelected judges to exercise power they don’t have as they rewrite the Constitution; it demeans people of faith who speak out against the culture of corruption and for — dare I say — family values; it undermines and seeks to demoralize Americans in uniform as they fight a horrible enemy on the battlefield; it demonizes entrepreneurs and successful enterprises; it uses race, age, religion, gender, and whatever works to balkanize Americans; and so on. This is the real culture of corruption. Let’s call it what it is — modern liberalism. And its impact on our society is far worse than the disorderly-conduct misdemeanor to which Larry Craig pled guilty and for which he has now resigned.

Labels: Campaign Contributions, Democrat Sabotage, Hsu Scandal, Media Bias, Scandal, The Left, US Senate

Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Hypocrisy

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Attack Politics, Democrat Sabotage, Justice Department

Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage

The Democratic Party has taken a swipe at the nation's fourth biggest state, stripping Florida of all of its '08 delegates as punishment for jumping the gun with its Jan. 29 primary. Florida's early date could force other states to move up and up to stay at the front of the pack.

Under a nearly unanimous vote taken moments ago by a powerful committee of the Democratic National Committee, if things don’t change, Florida’s primary will be a "beauty contest" — the delegates won’t count toward the party’s presidential nomination.

Florida officials complained that the DNC was going to "disenfranchise voters," as it says on the state party's home page. The DNC pushed back strongly against that contention, since it has rules that Florida decided not to follow.

This is the party’s way of trying to stop the crazy domino effect of states moving their nominating contests earlier and earlier, which causes OTHER states to go earlier and earlier.

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted nearly unanimously that Florida’s plan is noncompliant with party rules, and gave the state 30 days to fix it. Otherwise, the state will lose 100 percent of its delegates.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat, Democrat Sabotage

Labels: Cambodia, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Genocide, Iraq, Surrender Caucus, Vietnam

Labels: Appeasement, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Surrender Caucus

When it comes to Viet Nam, the New York Times has a curious sense of the historical record.

Commenting on President Bush's Viet Nam analogy used in his speech to veterans yesterday, the Times made this jaw dropping observation:

In urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Mr. Bush is challenging the historical memory that the pullout from Vietnam had few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.

And just to show that this is indeed, the company line at the Times about the aftermath of the Viet Nam war, Thomas Shanker uses the exact same phrase in a news analysis of the President's statements today:

The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.

Are they serious? Cambodia, an ally of the United States during the war, might have a little something to say about the Times' contention that there were few "negative repercussions" for them. Genocide on a scale that boggles the mind doesn't rate as a repercussion, I guess.

And what about Thailand? An ally of the US then and today, they surely didn't view our retreat from Viet Nam as anything except a setback for their security.

Then there is the now defunct Southeast Asian Treaty Organziation - SEATO - which went belly-up following our withdrawal from Viet Nam in 1977. Is the Times trying to argue that a collective security organization disbanding as a result of our pullback is not a "negative repercussion?"

I suppose emboldening the Soviets in Africa, Central America, and elsewhere - a direct consequence of us showing a lack of will in Viet Nam - wasn't too bad. After all, who cares about the Angolans anyway? Or the Salvadorans? Or the Nicaraguans? All three nations (and more) became recipients of Soviet attentions following our Viet Nam withdrawal. Would the Russians have been so bold otherwise? Certainly a debatable question but one where an affirmative answer can be well argued.

The Times is only reflecting the fact that the left in this country has been unable to face up to the consequences of their advocacy for withdrawal and abandonment of Viet Nam. Indeed, in the Shanker piece, one historian makes a liar out of the Times reporter:

“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.

It makes one wonder what the Times writers will be saying about Iraq 30 years from now. ...

HH: Now you’ve reported some very tough places, Sarajevo, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and after the liberation from the Taliban, and you’ve won Pulitzers for that. When you say cataclysmic civil war, what do you mean in terms of what you’ve seen before? What kind of violence do you imagine would break out after precipitous withdrawal?

JB: Well, let’s look at what’s happened already as a benchmark. Nobody really knows how many people have died here, but I would guess that in terms of the civilian population, it’s probably not less than 100-150,000, and it could be higher than that. I don’t think it’s as high as the 700,000 that some estimates have suggested, but I think it’s, and I know for a fact, that the sort of figures that were being discussed amongst senior American officials here, as a potential, should there be an early withdrawal and a progress to an all-out civil war, they’re talking about the possibility of as many as a million Iraqis dying.

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Genocide, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War

Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

Prosecutors allege Sharratt and other members of his battalion carried out a revenge-motivated assault on Iraqi civilians that left 24 dead after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine nearby.

Sharratt contends the Iraqi men he confronted were insurgents and at least one was holding an AK-47 rifle when he fired at them.

In addition to Sharratt, two other enlisted men are charged with murder and four officers are accused of failing to investigate the incident—the largest single Iraqi civilian death case of the war. Sharratt's case is the first among the three charged with murder to go to a hearing known as an Article 32 investigation, the military equivalent of a grand jury.

Back in June, I linked to an incredible must-read by J.R. Dunn on Haditha (if you didn't read it then, I highly recommend it now because it provides a very thorough dissection of the whole case).

Now today, as we mentioned, they are recommending also dropping charges against two other Marines.

But even more incredible--especially the enormous foot he stuck in his mouth right out of the box, and since there has been an outcry from Republican Congressmen for him to apologize--the disgusting Jack Murtha hung up today in an interview where the subject of Haditha was brought up, which Bryan of Hot Air has on tape: give it a listen. Bryan comments:

When he wasn’t busy over the past year or so arguing that we ought to fight al Qaeda in Iraq from our bases in Okinawa and Diego Garcia, Rep. Jack “Abscam” Murtha has been busy stuffing his face with pork, behaving questionably over appropriations and smearing US Marines. Now that three of the Marines Murtha prejudged to be guilty of cold-blooded murder have been cleared of all charges, Murtha ought to answer for what he has been saying about them.

Only one non-expletive word comes immediately to mind: Scum.

I don't care how much money it costs the RNC: Murtha needs to be taken out in next year's elections. Someone please get this disgraceful human being out of my sight...

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Enemy Propaganda, Iraq, John Murtha, The Left, Travesty of Justice, US Marines

The Democrats have been outmanuevered again on Iraq. Earlier this year, they took 108 days to come up with a funding formula that wouldn't get vetoed by the Bush administration, thinking that they could dictate terms to the White House. They found out, as the Republicans did in 1995, that Presidents are never irrelevant. He played "chicken" better than the Democrats, who swerved rather than allowing funds to run out on the troops, and gave Bush what he wanted in May.

It looks like September will bring more swerving. Even leading Democrats acknowledge that Petraeus has produced some stunning successes in Anbar and Diyala. Most people considered Anbar a lost cause, but Petraeus and his forces have freed the province of its terrorist oppressors and created a political movement of Iraqi unity called Anbar Awakening, which continues to spread. Barack Obama suggested yesterday that Baghdad could use another 30,000 troops.

Now that their predictions of military failure have have died, the Democrats want to focus on the lack of political reform as a reason to leave. In January, they talked about how futile it was to play "whack-a-mole" when terrorists would simply move back and forth, and that the American and Iraqi forces could not clear and hold territory. Since that's been proven wrong, they now claim that the current Iraqi government cannot possibly institute the reforms Congress demands, such as oil revenue sharing and the forgiveness of former Ba'athists. Unless Iraq succeeds in these reforms as a sign of unity, we should withdraw, the argument will go.

[...]

Even those who still insist on firm timetables question the Democratic leadership's strategy. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) says that the inflexible and confrontational approach taken by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has made it impossible to work with Republicans in Congress and the White House. Rather than asking the generals what they need, Congress has tried to dictate limits -- and lost. "I don't know what they're thinking," McNerney said to the Post about the leadership.

That's not true at all. Everyone knows what they're thinking. If they get outmanuevered again, the Democrats will catch hell from the activist base of their party and likely wind up losing the House to the Republicans in 2008. They can't afford to work cooperatively with the people Pelosi and Reid have successfully demonized with their voters, or they will look like complete hypocrites. That's the wages of demagoguery, and payday's coming in September.

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Harry Reid, Hypocrisy, Nancy Pelosi

Labels: Appeasement, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Surrender Caucus

Labels: America War Support, Appeasement, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Surrender Caucus