I repeat ladies and gents: Iraqi is devoid of any WMD’s whatsoever. Bush lied, people died. If he didn’t lie, where’s the WMD’s?
27 killed in Ramadi chemical attack
Ramadi: A suicide bomber targeting a police station exploded his truck full of chlorine gas in a residential area yesterday, killing 27 people in the biggest chemical attack by insurgents in Iraq since the invasion.
Amid the continuing violence, Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki ordered that jobs and pensions be offered to former officers of executed president Saddam Hussain’s military, many of whom had joined the Sunni insurgency against US forces.
The chemical attack took place in the western city of Ramadi. First reports said that 20 people had been killed, but the toll was later amended by police.
I’ve heard of Democrats behaving lordly over us peasants— such as John Kerry’s ubiquitously rumored refrain, “Don’t you KNOW who I AM?!”— but to see House Appropriations Chairman David Obey blow his top at another Democrat was startling.
Tina Richards, identified as a military mom: (Introducing herself to Obey). Tina Richards. I had left a poem that my son had written (unintelligible) and I was wondering if it had ever gotten to you. He’s a United States Marine. He’s done two tours in Iraq. And he’s ready to be deployed for a third tour.
OBEY: I honestly don’t know…
[Richards discusses son’s suicide attempts and problems with the VA.]
Richards: Are you going to be voting against the supplemental?
OBEY: Absolutely not. I’m the sponsor of the supplemental.
Richards: For the, um, to continue to the war?
OBEY: (Getting agitated). It doesn’t–we’re trying to–the President wants to continue the war. We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war. But you can’t end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understand that. There’s a hell of a difference between de-funding the troops and ending the war. I’m not gonna deny body armor. I’m not gonna deny funding for veterans’ hospitals and for defense hospitals so you can help people who have medical problems. And that’s what you do if you vote against that bill.
Richards: But there should be enough money in the regular defense bill…
OBEY: Well, there isn’t…
Richards: …without continuing the funding for the war.
OBEY: There isn’t. There isn’t. That’s not the way it works. The money in the defense bill — it pays for a standing army. But it doesn’t pay for these recurrent costs. We’re going to add over a billion dollars more to it than what the President was asking for in that bill so we can deal with some of exactly the problems here you’re talking about. How the hell are you going to provide money to the hospitals if you don’t provide the money?
Richards: Well, then, are you going to be in support then of–
OBEY: I HATE THE WAR! I voted against it to start with. I was the first guy in Congress to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. But we don’t have the votes to de-fund the war. And we shouldn’t. Because that also means de-funding everything that you’ve got in that bill to help the guys who are victims of the war.
Richards: Well, there’s an amendment to the supplemental that’s being proposed to fully fund the withdrawal of the troops [Ed.: The Lee Amendment] –
OBEY: THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It doesn’t work that way.
Richards: Well, so that the funds–
OBEY: (Gesturing with arms wildly) The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war. Makes it illegal to proceed with the war. You don’t have to de-fund something if the war doesn’t exist!
Richards: Oh, I didn’t know that was in the–
OBEY: That’s the problem! That’s the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! You don’t have to cut off funds for an activity that is no longer legal. We’re shutting it off.
Second man in hallway interrupts: Congressman, what about the Church Amendment that helped end the Vietnam War in, what was is, ‘72-’73.
OBEY: It took us 31 different efforts to get there. I was here for that!
Man: Didn’t that help end the ground war in Vietnam?
OBEY: No, it didn’t. The political pressure on the administration finally ended the war. The amendment that finally ended the funding was the [unintelligible] amendment. I was the sponsor of that–
Man: But if you pass a resolution, isn’t he still the commander-in-chief?
OBEY: (Gesturing wildly again) WE DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT! WE COULDN’T EVEN GET THE VOTES TO PASS A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION ONE WEEK AGO! How the hell do you think we’re gonna get the votes to cut off the war?!
Man: You stop the funding.
OBEY: (Shouting) HOW IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE VOTES?! It takes…
Man: Filibuster his supplemental request.
OBEY: There is no filibuster in the House!
Man: Well, in the Senate they could do it.
OBEY: I’m sorry…No, I’m not gonna vote for it [Lee amendment].
(Pointing finger) I’m the sponsor of the bill that’s going to be on floor. And that bill ends the war. IF THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, YOU’RE SMOKING SOMETHING ILLEGAL!
Man: No, I’m not, sir.
OBEY: You’ve got your facts screwed up!
Man: (Crosstalk)
OBEY: We can’t get the votes! You see a magic wand in my pocket? How the hell we going to get the votes for it? We ain’t got the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up. We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war. That’s the same as de-funding it–YES IT WOULD!
So the here plain for all to see is the Democrats’ game-plan to end the war.
Straight from the horse’s mouth he said, “We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war. That’s the same as de-funding it–YES IT WOULD!” The Democrats, who keep insisting they support our troops even as they block and obstruct the war effort at every turn for years now, are coming out in the open with their intentions.
They’re attempting to cut off the funding for our troops, except they’re not calling it that. Instead, they are attacking the legal basis for the war, which, if declared illegal, would de-fang and de-fund our troops, not in name but in fact.
It’s kind of like using the term “redeployment” rather “retreat”…
Note the contradictory statements: “There’s a hell of a difference between de-funding the troops and ending the war.” Compare this statement with the one above declaring that ending the war and de-funding it are the same thing. It doesn’t take a rhetorician to discover the truth somewhere in this muddled thinking.
Even more incredible is how this plan to end the war is squirreled into a supplemental bill to fund the Veterans Administration, which gives medical care to wounded and disabled veterans. This bill also allows funding for body armor for our troops. You see, this insidious political maneuver tries paints conservatives into the corner. On the one hand, conservatives can’t vote for this bill because it’ll end the war and cut the funding for our troops. On the other, if they don’t vote for this bill, the Democrats would spin their vote as proof that the Republicans don’t care a fig for our troops, the people who are doing the dying in Iraq.
But wait, hold that dial! It gets richer.
By making the war illegal, the Democrats also make the President a criminal, which could possibly be construed as “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” and which also provide grounds for impeachment proceedings. You cannot declare the war illegal without making the person initiating the war a criminal.
Whether or not this bill passes the House, this is a sly power move of the first order. This is the first major push to limit the power of Presidency as Commander-In-Chief since the Vietnam era.
Stay tuned folks…
How are the Democrats going to hold the anti-war leftists and reach out to the moderates simultaneously without falling flat on their behind?
We might be seeing the beginnings of a civil war within the Democratic Party… or it’s implosion… or perhaps a resurgence of rationality.
Update 3/10/07:
The Hill published Obey’s curious apology for the outburst yesterday. It’s curious because, well, I didn’t see an apology anywhere in the story. The article quoted Obey as saying the word “sorry” once— and that’s just before he cut off all questions and raced off somewhere, allegedly to a hearing.
It’s somewhat shocking to see the liberals turning on each other. But what did I expect? For over forty years now, the liberals and the leftists have droned accusations against the conservatives and the Republicans— from anti-war Vietnam protesting to the nuclear freeze; from Watergate to Memogate; from calling President Reagan and our current President a dunce to the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine.
You cannot employ these underhanded tactics with impunity for decades and not expect them to round on you. Metaphorically speaking, even rabid dogs turn on their masters.
We are seeing the first glimpses of it. Congressman Obey— who was of that anti-Vietnam war generation, who de-funded our troops in Vietnam after “31 different efforts to get there,” which lead to the massacre of millions of people in Indochina— is now on the receiving end of what the anti-war Vietnam protesters of his generation did.
Tensions had already been riding high, he said, because this week protesters had been “sitting in” his district office and have refused to leave at the end of the business day and were arrested…
“What so frustrated me about the encounter is that it became apparent that she had no idea that the bill she was being asked to tell me to vote against would set a deadline for our getting out of Iraq,” he said.
The frustrations he expressed here has been the frustration of the Republicans and the conservatives for two generations. I can’t tell you the hundreds or thousands of times such an altercation has happened in my life. The droning, repetitious, unthinking set of ideas that somehow keeps coming at you even though you’ve proved those ideas fallacious and illogical. But logic and reasoning does not have anything to do with it, does it? (See also narcissism.)
What also caught my eye in Obey’s “apology” was this statement.
“So many of these liberal groups don’t adequately inform their members. They don’t have the full story about what we’re trying to do and they wind up not being able to distinguish their friend from their enemy. These people won’t take yes for an answer.”
It is the perennial temptation in today’s toxic environment to view those with whom you disagree as “enemies”, even when they are your own countrymen. With the decline of objectivity, came the decline of morality. With the decline of morality, came the decline of civility. With the decline of all of these, rose the worship of power for its own sake…
Does Congressman Obey mean to call all those who support the war his “enemies”? As much as I don’t like the Hillary Clintons, the Al Gores, and the rest of their ilk, they are not my “enemies”. I think they are misguided and wayward in their beliefs and ideas, but they are not my enemies.
Truly, it is not against flesh and blood that we contend…
What a sad life we would all lead if we viewed everyone who disagreed with us as enemies. We would have no friends, only temporary alliances toward a purpose…
That truly would be Hell.
Further thoughts:
Through this incident, I discovered that it is illegal for the media to film our legislators without their expressed permission. No wonder we keep hearing of our esteemed Congressmen and Senators behave outrageously but never see footage of it. I’m sure there are very good reasons for this…
Foxnews reported early this month that three senior US military officers are appealing to Europe to intervene against the United States in the case of a possible military attack against Iran. US General Robert G. Gard Jr., US General Joseph P. Hoar and US Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan along with a peace activist organization in Great Britain, called Crisis Action, say that a military solution against Iran would be “highly dangerous”.
The BBC further confirmed Foxnews’ report today and published part of a statement made by the US officers:
… three senior retired US military officers have said that they “strongly caution against the use of military force”. They have called on Britain to play a “vital role in securing a renewed diplomatic push”…
Their statement says: “An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, collation forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions. The current crisis must be resolved through diplomacy.
“There is time available to talk.”
The fact that General Hoar is a former CENTCOM commander-in-chief lends a certain degree of credibility to their collective statements (even if misplaced) and further embarrasses the Bush Administration.
However, some voices within the pressure group diverge from the main consensus of opinion by opposing military action against Iran on legal grounds.
Former British Ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, said:
“There is no legal basis for an attack… The negotiating road is hard but could be improved if Iran was offered a regional security assurance and the United States became more directly involved to reduce the issues between themselves and Iran.”
The difficulties with all these pronouncements from Crisis Action and our former military officers is manifold.
Firstly, what business is it of two former US Generals and one former Vice Admiral to influence the decision-making process on US foreign policy? Even more disturbing is their method. They are appealing to a foreign power (Great Britain) in an attempt to coerce US foreign policy into a diplomatic course with Iran.
Due to the painfully obvious fact that these officers weren’t elected to any position power by the American people, why should their statement carry any weight whatever? It is also painfully obvious that they do not hold a very high opinion of the American people and our system government, since they have taken it upon themselves to cavort with foreign powers and international organizations.
From these actions, one must ask: Where do their allegiances lie, if not with the United States?
Secondly, Crisis Action and these officers make the bold statement that “[t]here is time available to talk.” Do these people have access to vital intelligence materials that would suggest that we have ample time for diplomacy? (We have entered into diplomatic multilateral talks with Iran for over two years and have produced one farce and failure after another.) If they have, where did they obtain their intelligence– our government? Iran’s?
If they haven’t that kind of access, they have no business making such sweeping statements that are both dangerous and disingenuous. Either way, they have much to answer for.
Thirdly, when exactly did it become acceptable for military officers to challenge the judgment of their civilian leaders? Let us not get wrapped around the axle about the fact that these officers are no longer serving in the military. This is only a superficial argument since the only reason their statements carry any weight whatever is because of they wear the uniform.
The fact that they wore the uniform and held the ranks of general and vice admiral makes their actions more reprehensible, not less. Unlike a corporal or a petty officer, these men wielded the power of our military at our behest, and it is impossible that they don’t understand the likely consequences of their actions.
Lastly, Sir Richard Dalton’s objection that such an attack on Iran would be “illegal” presupposes two mythical ideas– that internationalism can actually work as an enforcing entity, and secondly that international law is something other than a series of treaties and agreements, often temporary, between civilized countries (If they are not civilized, treaties would be worth less that the paper its printed on). People have this ridiculous notion that international law exists outside of these agreements and, moreover, that signatories of these agreements are utterly bound by them.
There is no such thing. Purist fiction.
Nations choose to adhere to these inter-national agreements because it is beneficial to their self-interest, and they abrogate them when the agreement runs its full course (i.e. the terms and duration of the treaty has been fulfilled.) or when it is no longer beneficial for their self-interest. Nations also adhere to treaties because the alternative (breaking agreements) would incur stiff penalties from other parties and would generally not be within their interests.
For Sir Richard Dalton, a former ambassador, and others to raise the fiction of a universally binding international law as an argument against war, I would have to assume that he has been misinformed about the nature of nation-states and, thus, ignorant their relationships with each other, or else he’s advocating fanciful myths.
Whatever our ultimate decision on Iran, let it not be made through the influence of obstructing generals nor the adventuring of foreign powers into our own affairs. Let the decision be made through sober reflections on the price of waiting and also on the price of going to war.
Sir Winston Churchill once remarked after Munich, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.”
Let us pray that such is not the case before us today, but in the choice between terrible appeasement or terrible war against an evil tyranny, there should be no question. Total opposition is what’s called for, for total disaster is what’s at stake, and neither the Cindy Sheehan’s nor the the Neville Chamberlain’s nor the pacifist generals of the world will matter much if (when?) the avalanche begins.
Michelle Malkin posted a video put together by Spc. Andy Johnson of the 10st Airborne. I thought the song by Johnny Cash was an especially good touch…
We should be ashamed of ourselves that our boys are over there getting shot at, and we’re here in America roughly 4 years later still debating and undermining them… shameful.
Mr. James Lewis, at the American Thinker, writes that the British are “rapidly trying to become more like the Continent”. I do not dispute this; however, perhaps the British are further along in their Continental European-ization than we think. Mr. Lewis blogged about “Massive cuts in the Royal Navy” over a week ago, and while I agree with everything he wrote there, there is also an added dimension that needs looking at.
When the United States was attacked on 9/11 and we engaged in battle across the globe against Islamofascism, Britain, under the leadership of Tony Blair, went with us. In fact, throughout our 50-plus years of alliance, Britain has increased our force projection across the globe by approximately a factor of one-third.
However, with the news that Britain will cut almost half of its Royal Navy, a shadow has fallen between Britain and the United States.
According to the Telegraph, soldiers return on leave from dangerous overseas missions are treated to “near-squalor” conditions in their barracks. Even more ominous are reports that ships “are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.” This means that ships from the Royal Navy are setting sail into possible enemy fire without even being armed properly.
It is quite clear that Britain’s military has been degenerating for some time for conditions to reach such catastrophic levels of readiness. It can also be surmised that the British Parliament voted to go to war without allocating the money for the conduct of war.
Mr. Lewis quite astutely wrote that this is a direct manipulation on the part of the British elite to coerce “ambitious young officers” into joining the EU’s military rather than Britain’s. Internationalism is finally having its way in Britain—their hour has come round at last.
But what of the United States? Isn’t Britain still “co-equal partners” with the United States in the War on Terror, which rages across the Mideast and other parts of the world?
I think not. Not anymore.
In gutting of the Royal Navy and the other arms of the British military, Britain’s elite are also cutting their American “allies” off at the ankles. We are four years into this war with both America’s and Britain’s military working together in tandem, and suddenly we discover that their Parliament didn’t even provide funds for the war and that the Ministry of Defense is bankrupt? They wait until the consensus of opinion is that the United States is spread too thin across the world, and then makes the announcement that they will cut half of their fleet, rendering them virtually impotent.
If all this is accurate and not just a ploy to trick our enemies, this is not just irresponsible; this is close to Machiavellian in its mendacity.
Perhaps, the Tories will reverse this tide of globalism in British politics and policy, but I wonder if it isn’t already too late. And if it is, they’ll get to sleep in the bed they’ve made for themselves. By slashing their navy, Britain has handed itself utterly to the Continent, who in turn is utterly dependent on Russia for their energy supplies (without which they’ll freeze), and who is becoming more totalitarian with every passing year. Aside from their personal nuclear deterrent, Britain is virtually disarming itself, for what is Britain without its navy? (Was the Norman Conquest of England that successful?)
Haven’t they become just another backbiting sycophant whose heyday has past, like France; and who, in their apparent lack of true courage, accuses the courageous of being evil?
Have the mighty British people sunk to become little better than another marginal EU outpost?
For that matter, what use is Britain to us, now that they have joined wholeheartedly in the chorus of the envious?
God bless them, but I don’t think they know what they’ve done…
I am a Royal Navy officer in the Ministry of Defence in London and your blog saddens me, not for the opinion you are offering, but for your willingness to believe what is written in the Daily Telegraph or other peoples’ blogs. The truth of the matter is that the Royal Navy is not about to be halved as reported. In fact, even though decisions have not yet been made it is very unlikely that any significant changes will be made to the force structure at all. Furthermore, the UK is embarking on its largest warship building programme in 20 years with new larger Aircraft Carriers, Destroyers and Submarines all at various stages in the pipeline to add to the best Amphibious capability we’ve had for years. When this works its way through, the Royal Navy will be more capable than ever before. Reports of our demise are, I’m glad to say, premature.
Nothing would delight me more than if Britain remained our stalwart ally.
I’ve long admired the British people with her rich history, from King Henry the Second to Edmund Burke to Winston Churchill. There was a time when I didn’t question our alliance, that of the United States and Great Britain. It was a matter of course between two nations with a shared culture and close affinity that they should help in the defense of one another.
But in recent years, with all the mass protests against President Bush on his visits, all the subtle and vociferous anti-Americanism propounded by the BBC and other media outlets– I’m afraid my confidence in the alliance between America and Great Britain has been terribly frayed.
I do not relish the idea of the United States standing alone against the tide of world, as it increasingly seems to be the case, but it seems many of our “allies” have already abandoned us. This is, indeed, a sad business…
I truly hope I am wrong. I hope the reportage from the Telegraph is nothing more than Leftist propaganda aimed at eroding the will of the British people and her Majesty’s government (much like the Leftist propaganda here in the United States), and I invite anyone more knowledgeable than myself to refute the Telegraph’s article earlier this month.
Just weeks after the Democrats won the Mid-term election of 2006, they have already reneged on their campaign promises. Most of the entering junior Democratic senators and congressmen campaigned on a “Blue Dog” platform that promised not to cut and run from Iraq. If anything, these candidates presented themselves as further to the Right on the war than Republicans.
Then they won and suddenly they didn’t look as hawkish as they seemed.
Less than a month after their victory, Senator Richard Durbin said:
“We have got to start moving American troops, redeploying them out of Iraq, and start bringing them home.”
Growing ever bolder with them finally seated in Congressional power, Durbin, speaking for the entire congressional Democrats, said this of the President’s speech:
It’s time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we’ve paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.
And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We’ve given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government.
We Americans, and a few allies, have protected Iraq when no one else would.
Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation.
It doesn’t look like anyone in the Media is going to call them on this overt manipulation of the American public. They win control of Congress by reassuring the American public that they are determined to win The War on Terror and in Iraq. No cut and run. But they’re not even hiding behind the pretense anymore.
I must, however, try give them the benefit of the doubt on this because I don’t like their ideology and behavior. It could very well be that they are privy to information that I cannot possibly know, and from this information, they have revised their stance on the war. The brief hawkish period of the Democratic party lasting for the duration of the 2006 campaign could have been an attempt at a real genuine change that events didn’t allow them to continue.
Who knows? I don’t have a window into the souls of men.
Regardless of their intent, however, I think someone, anyone, should call them on this reversal of position.
What do you, Constant Reader, think of the Democrats’ flip-flopping on this issue of war?
Is it expediency to achieve power or action flowing from conviction?
Do you catch the drift here? After reading just the headlines, you get the sense that the President’s plan was ill-conceived and rotten right out of the chalks. But this is a bit misleading. These headlines didn’t just appear the day after the President’s speech. Headlines similar to these have been drenching us for over a week and a half before the President addressed the nation.
I think Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of our media these past few years, but especially so these past few weeks as President Bush outlined his revised strategy for winning the war in Iraq. You might have very well asked yourself, “Well, what did the President propose?”
That is a very good question. If you didn’t catch the President’s speech, and if you don’t have the knack for digging after news, like so many of us news junkies, you cannot know his plan through the mainstream media without it being completely tainted with half-truths and the clever twisting of facts.
Their reasoning is as follows: If the President is going to make a speech on his revised policy of how to win in Iraq, it must be wrong, perhaps even evil. If it is wrong, then it must be opposed. Thus, in order to oppose it effectively, the President and his policy must be attacked first to sway the American people to believe he is wrong.
Nowhere in this reasoning does it address the President’s actual policy. After President Bush’s speech, the media and the liberals continued their droning disdain for the President.
Last year, they accused the President of not putting enough troops on the ground. The President’s plan calls for more troops. Now, they say the President is unnecessarily risking American lives by increasing troops, since this mess should be given back to the Iraqi government.
Last year, they accused the President of drifting and not having a plan for winning. The President presents his plan to surge troop numbers to hold the 9 districts of Baghdad along with the Iraqi troops, so that insurgents won’t be able to slither back into place once our troops move on to another “hot spot”. Even though the plan was conceived with the help of top generals, top foreign policy experts and the Iraqi government, they are calling this plan an “escalation” much like Vietnam. Some on Capitol Hill accused the President of not listening to his generals, when that is clearly not the case.
Senator Richard Durbin said in his response to the President:
Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president’s plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction.
In ordering more troops to Iraq, the president is ignoring the strong advice of most of his own top generals. Gen. John Abizaid — until recently the commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan — said, and I quote, “More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future,” end of quote.
Twenty-thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we’ve already lost.
So, he quoted General Abizaid as making the flat statement that more troops would mean less responsibility for the Iraqis to refute the President’s plan. This, however, is really shallow thinking. The purpose of this troop surge is not to give power back to the Iraqi government, although that is our long term goal. It is to defeat the terrorists by taking and holding real estate rather than employing a strike and maneuver strategy. The latter is great at defeating armies but not so great at defeating asymmetrical enemies, like terrorists and indigenous insurgences.
You can almost hear the screeches of the liberals: Quagmire! Quagmire!