Saturday - October 27, 2007

News Release You Won’t See

Here’s another bit of news you probably haven’t heard about from the MSM:

Unfortunately, most Americans do not consider Iraqis as people. We see them as terrorists or victims, not as everyday people with the same values as our friends, neighbors and relatives. Yet, most Iraqis are decent human beings with the same concerns, dreams, and compassion as most Americans. They want peace and are concerned about their fellow man.

Is it no wonder that we feel differently about the people of Iraq, when the American media only reports sensational news? If it doesn’t bleed or explode, you just aren’t going to see it on the evening news. I received a press release from Baghdad today, which I know the mainstream media will not pass on to you all. Here is an example of Iraqi charity and gratitude which touched my soul. Imagine how incredibly generous these soldiers are. They have little to support their own families. It’s not enough that they are fighting daily to bring peace to their country. They are actually reaching out to help unfortunate Americans.

Richard S. Lowry is author of Marines in the Garden of Eden and The Gulf War Chronicles.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20071026-01
October 26, 2007

Iraqi Army at Besmaya Installation Support San Diego Fire Victims
By U.S. Army Sgt 1st Class Charlene Sipperly
Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq Public Affairs

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya’s San Diego residents.

Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.

The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/27/2007 at 10:04 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Middle-East • War-Stories •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - September 17, 2007

Hmm, quite different from Cindy Sheehan’s Response

Found this article linked from Newsvine.. source is TheRawStory ... Far from a conservative Source… of course they have to add a jab to Bush at the end.. They can’t understand the Difference of him using 1 KIA name compared to the way the Anti-war protesters are using the names of KIA’s....such is the Left

Fox News spoke on Friday to the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who is upset about anti-war protesters’ plans to stage a “die-in” using the names of actual war dead.

Merrillee Carlson, national chair of Families United for our Troops and Their Mission, told Fox, “When somebody goes and abuses our son’s courage and heroism by using it in this manner, it just strikes right to the heart and causes such pain that is unbelievable.”

“I think the name ‘die-in’ is offensive,” suggested one of the Fox hosts, “but I want to ask you this. Most Americans, if you ask them, cannot name one soldier or marine who’s been killed in combat. ... This arguably, at least, heightens the awareness that there are people, in fact, dying in this war. ... Do you see any merit in that?”

“They’re not doing it in a way to honor them,” insisted Carlson. “They’re doing it in a way to abuse them. to dishonor them, because they’re using it anti-war. ... The protesters are going against everything that these young men and women believed in and that’s what’s disgraceful about it.”

The anti-war protesters are not the only ones invoking the memory of those killed in Iraq. In his speech on Thursday, President Bush used the name of one of the war dead, Army Spc. Brandon Stout, to highlight the necessity of sacrifice in “a war of good and evil.”

The following video is from Fox’s Fox & Friends, broadcast on September 14.

When he was a senior in high school, Army Sergeant Michael Carlson, son of Merrilee and Daniel Carlson, wrote a three-page credo that was recently published in the Wall Street Journal.

“When I am on my deathbed, what am I going to look back on? Will it be thirty years of fighting crime and protecting the country of all enemies, foreign and domestic? I want my life to account for something… I only have so much time. I want to be good at life; I want to be known as the best of the best at my job. I want people to need me, to count on me… I want to fight for something, be part of something that is greater than myself. I want to be a soldier...”

After serving nearly four years in the Army, including a final stint with the Ice Platoon (82nd Engineers), Michael, 22, fulfilled those prophetic words. During a night mission, his platoon was assigned to cordon off and take out of commission, two bomb-making factories. As the Bradley they were driving was going over a culvert in the roadway, the culvert gave way and the vehicle rolled over backwards into the water. Seven soldiers were in the Bradley; five died, including Michael. A rescue unit was able to save two other soldiers, in large part because before he died, Michael was able to partly pry open the hatch in the vehicle. Says Merrilee, “We are privileged to have men and women serving in the military who are willing to give their lives, their time, and their energy to preserve, protect and defend our freedom.”

News

* Merrilee Carlson spoke to WCCO-TV in Minneapolis at a recent Families United event.

* “We can’t leave this work undone in Iraq. We can all argue about how we might have gotten there. But we’re there and we need to see it through....I suppose we could have taken the beaches at Normandy,’’ Merrilee said, “and then decided it was too expensive or too difficult to keep going. I wonder what the world would look like today.’’ Read more of Mrs. Carlson’s interview with the St. Paul Pioneer Press here.

* Daniel Carlson said his son’s essay and the response to it have eased the pain of losing him, and he continues to believe that the U.S. effort will lead to a better, freer Iraq and a safer America. “He didn’t die in vain,” he said. “It will come.” Minneapolis Star Tribune 5/29/05

source of above on Families United for our Troops and Their Mission

Link to the 3 Page PDF of the essay her son wrote in School in May 2000

Posted by Infinity     on 09/17/2007 at 01:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Military •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - July 31, 2007

Is the Tide Turning?

Are we seeing a change of heart at the NY Slimes?

From Best of the Web:

On Second Thought, Don’t Surrender
In an important and surprising New York Times op-ed piece, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both from the liberal Brookings Institution, describe a visit to Iraq, where they find that things are not as bad as--well, as New York Times readers have been led to believe. The piece is titled “A War We Just Might Win”:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated--many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

O’Hanlon and Pollack report that Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province “are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies,” that “the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate” in the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul, and that “the American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners.”

They say the situation “remains grave,” especially on the “political front,” but they counsel against a quick retreat, as many Democrats on Capitol Hill have been advocating:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

In a way, though, what is most telling about this piece is the introduction:

Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the authors are right when they claim the Bush administration has “lost essentially all credibility.” Does this excuse the administration’s critics for being “unaware of the significant changes taking place"--especially when some of those critics have, for reasons of partisanship, ideology or just plain animus, actively campaigned to destroy the administration’s credibility?

In the critics’ defense, one may say that they have not, by and large, been in positions of responsibility; that if things have gone wrong in Iraq, the administration deserves the lion’s share of the blame.

On the other hand, those critics now include the leaders of both houses of Congress, as well as several politicians who would like to become president. For them, at least, it is a serious failure of leadership if they base their views on Iraq on their own disdain for President Bush, or the hope of exploiting voters’ disdain for him, rather than on reality.

Posted by Drew458     on 07/31/2007 at 08:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Media-Bias •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - May 29, 2007

The Anbar Awakening

Kharmah Awakens

Written by JD Johannes
Tuesday, 29 May 2007

“In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak institutions.  Those cases suggest that the Bush administration’s political objective in Iraq--creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops--is unrealistic.”
Professor James D. Fearon, writing in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs.

There is one problem with Professor Fearon’s thesis--the facts on the ground that I am seeing right now and that he has not seen in person or not seen recently.

A major part of Fearon’s well reasoned argument is that U.S. support for the Maliki government, “encourages Sunni nationalists to turn to al Qaeda in Iraq for support against Shiite militias and the Iraqi army.”

His argument is logical and would be correct if the Sunnis of Anbar cooperated with his argument--but they are not cooperating with the good professor’s thesis.  In fact, they are doing just the opposite.  The Sunnis of Anbar are now siding with the coalition and fighting Al Qaeda.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/29/2007 at 06:33 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - May 22, 2007

The Surrender Monkeys … Surrender

File that picture of Harry “Las Vegas Land Deal” Reid below for the record books. It tells it all. The Donks have finally decided to run up the white flag and surrender to common sense. That alone is worth a historical marker for the record books. They have finally looked at the votes and decided they they don’t have the votes and they are probably full of shiite in the bargain.

Will that stop them or even slow them down in their mad march to insanity? Of course not! At least we can now get on with the business of making sure our troops are funded in the field. It matters not whether you think the war is right or wrong, stranding our troops without funding is horse-shit. Allocate the money and then we can argue about the progress.

Of course the radical Left-Wing-Nuts who have captured the Democratic Party will have a hissy fit. The countdown begins in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ....

Democrats Drop Troop Pullout Dates From Iraq Bill
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - May 22, 2007

Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war. A Democratic effort to include timelines prompted Mr. Bush’s veto of the original bill last month, producing a political impasse.

“We don’t have a veto-proof Congress,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democratic majority leader, said the new bill was still being assembled, but he acknowledged the political reality facing Democrats. “The president has made it very clear that he is not going to sign timelines,” said Mr. Hoyer. “We can’t pass timelines over his veto.”

The concession to the president was proving so difficult for the Democratic leadership that by this afternoon, the lawmakers had not yet publicly acknowledged that the timelines would disappear. House Democrats were preparing to advance two separate measures, to enable antiwar lawmakers to support popular domestic spending but not the money for the war. House Democrats were to review the proposal later this evening, but lawmakers were already predicting that many would not support the war spending.

Under the new plan approved by Democratic leaders, Congress would send Mr. Bush the money for the war and include a series of benchmarks that attracted 52 votes in the Senate last week. The Iraqi government could lose some foreign aid if it fails to show sufficient progress but the president would be given the authority to suspend any penalties.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/22/2007 at 09:07 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - May 16, 2007

Missing GI’s Update

They’re not just numbers. They have names ... and families. They also have honor and courage to face death. Their foe has no honor and no courage - other than enough to hide bombs and sneak away in the dark of night. The enemy employs barbaric torture techniques - purely for pleasure and propaganda.

Yesterday, I posted here about the Iraqi prisons beginning to fill up. JUst between you and me there is a viable solution to several problems presented here. There is no need for any more prison cells. The insurgents are not in uniform and not recognizable as a soldier of an opposing force. That makes them ... spies.

According to the rules of warfare, spies may be shot. They have no protection under Geneva Convention rules. So from now on, when an “insurgent” is captured or wounded, he is to be given ten minutes to get right with Allah then stood up against a wall and shot. Then the body is to be covered in pig blood and left for the vultures.

This “insurrection” will cease within five minutes of the first one taken care of and word starts to spread. Is there anyone out there in our government who has the balls to risk the wrath of every bleeding heart Liberal on the planet to just do it? If no, then we’re just wasting our time ... and precious lives.

Missing, Slain GIs Identified As Search Continues in Iraq
BAGHDAD (WASHINGTON POST) - May 15

The Pentagon on Tuesday released the names of seven soldiers from the Army’s 10th Mountain Division who were captured or killed by insurgents in a sophisticated weekend ambush south of Baghdad.

The three soldiers confirmed dead are Sgt. 1st Class James David Connell Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn., Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich., and Pfc. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va. The Pentagon said they died in the village of Al Taqa “of wounds suffered when their patrol was attacked by enemy forces using automatic fire and explosives.”

Four soldiers were listed as “duty status whereabouts unknown,” a term often used before a soldier is formally listed as missing. Of those four, however, one is known to be dead but was badly burned in the ambush that left the soldiers’ Humvees ablaze, so the military must conduct forensic tests to determine his identity. The four are Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev., Spec. Alex R. Jimenez, 25, of Lawrence, Mass., Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif., and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, 19, of Waterford, Mich. All the soldiers were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y.

The U.S. military did not identify an Iraqi interpreter who also was killed in the Saturday ambush. A massive hunt involving 4,000 troops is underway for the three missing soldiers, who U.S. military officials believe are in insurgent hands. “All available assets are being brought to bear in search of these missing soldiers,” said Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum.

Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said the soldiers were in two Humvees, in “a stationary position.” When other members of the unit heard an explosion, they “immediately tried to establish contact,” he said. Two patrols dispatched to the scene of the attack themselves encountered roadside bombs.

The soldiers were watching a location where insurgents often place roadside bombs when they came under fire, said Fitzpatrick, who described the ambush as “obviously a deliberate and planned attack,” forcing the U.S. military’s reaction forces to fight their way to the scene.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/16/2007 at 10:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Military •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - May 15, 2007

Jailhouse Iraq

New Detainees Strain Iraq’s Jails
Sharp Rise Follows Start of Security Plan; Suspects Housed With Convicts
BAGHDAD (WASHINGTON POST) - Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The capture of thousands of new suspects under the three-month-old Baghdad security plan has overwhelmed the Iraqi government’s detention system, forcing hundreds of people into overcrowded facilities, according to Iraqi and Western officials.

Nearly 20,000 people were in Iraqi-run prisons, detention camps, police stations and other holding cells as of the end of March, according to a U.N. report issued last month, an increase of more than 3,500 from the end of January.

The U.S. military said late last week that it was holding about 19,500 detainees, up more than 3,000 since the U.S. and Iraqi governments began implementing the security plan in mid-February.

Estimates of those inside Iraqi facilities, where reports of beatings and torture are common, vary widely because detainees are dispersed among hundreds of locations run by different ministries.

The U.S. military holds detainees at two main centers, Camp Bucca in southern Iraq and Camp Cropper near Baghdad, and officials say they are committed to avoiding the abuses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Iraq’s prisons for convicted criminals are managed by the Justice Ministry, but because of crowding in Iraqi army detention centers, authorities have transferred many untried detainees to live with convicts.

“We made some space for them, but now our space is full,” said Deputy Justice Minister Pusho Ibrahim Ali Daza Yei. Referring to the military, he added, “This is their problem, not mine.”

Yei, in an interview at his Baghdad office, said the Justice Ministry had taken in 1,843 such detainees from the military from the start of the security plan in February through April 21, an influx that now accounts for more than 15 percent of the ministry’s prison population.

“The reason why there’s more detainees is because there’s more forces on the ground, both Iraqi and coalition, out there doing operations. So you’ve got more people to go out and detain them,” said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the top American military field commander in Iraq. “The bottom line is we have more than we can handle collectively.”

The Iraqi constitution mandates that documents outlining the preliminary investigation must be submitted to a judge within 24 hours of a suspect’s arrest, with a possible extension of another day. But the flood of prisoners has worsened a situation in which many often wait weeks or months before their cases are heard.

To filter through the rapidly growing list of detainees, authorities have dispatched teams of judges, prosecutors and investigators—known as “tiger teams”—to determine whether there is enough evidence in a case to hold the suspect, according to a Western official in Baghdad familiar with the prison system. But the teams cannot keep up with the influx.

“We’re just storing up a tidal wave of cases, with a judicial system that cannot cope with what they’ve got,” said the official, who is not authorized to speak publicly and was interviewed on condition of anonymity. “They’re basically closing their eyes to the problem under the Baghdad security plan.”

Human rights officials say Justice Ministry facilities offer the best an Iraqi prisoner can hope for, as they generally meet international standards for space and treatment. But officials are increasingly concerned about the detention camps run by the Iraqi army and the Interior Ministry, which oversees the police force. In particular, several officials raised concerns about a detention center in Kadhimiyah, a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of northern Baghdad. The center, built to hold about 400 people, is said to house more than 1,000, with juveniles mixed into the population, officials said.

Some former inmates at Kadhimiyah have told human rights officials that they were tortured.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/15/2007 at 07:41 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - May 14, 2007

Let’s Make A Deal

Memo to Al-Qaeda In Iraq:

OK, it’s time to negotiate. Here’s the deal, Al-Qaeda In Iraq .... either you release our soldiers unharmed, without a hair on their heads touched or we start killing everything in sight. Or you can allow the Red Cross to check on them and deliver mail and packages while you hold them in POW camps under Geneva Convention rules - with Bibles provided ... or we start killing everything in sight.

Personally, I would prefer to just cut to the chase and start killing everything in sight. We know you have probably already killed our troops after torturing them with knives, swords and any kitchen implements you found handy. Don’t worry - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC, NY TIMES, et al will defend your right to draw and quarter those young men in your custody.

There are certain rules in warfare and you have violated every one of them, killing civilians mindlessly and laughing at all of the rules of the Geneva Convention. So we are going to give the Iraqi Army orders to shoot everything that moves and sweep the countryside clean while we look the other way, OK? Don’t worry though, we’ll be busy shooting any reporters who wander by. Have a nice day. You are now officially dead men walking ....

-- The Skipper

Al-Qaida Claims To Have 3 Missing Troops
BAGHDAD (YAHOO NEWS) - May 13, 2007

An al-Qaida front group announced Sunday it had captured American soldiers in a deadly attack the day before, as thousands of U.S. troops searched insurgent areas south of Baghdad for their three missing comrades.

The statement came on one of the deadliest days in the country in recent weeks, with at least 124 people killed or found dead. A suicide truck bomb tore through the offices of a Kurdish political party in northern
Iraq, killing 50 people, and a car bombing in a crowded Baghdad market killed another 17.

Troops surrounded the town of Youssifiyah and told residents over loudspeakers to stay inside, residents said. They then methodically searched the houses, focusing on possible secret chambers under the floors where the soldiers might be hidden, residents said. The soldiers marked each searched house with a white piece of cloth.

Soldiers also searched cars entering and leaving the town, writing “searched” on the side of each vehicle they had inspected. Several people were arrested, witnesses said.

The Islamic State in Iraq offered no proof for its claim that it was behind the attack Saturday in Mahmoudiya that also killed four U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi translator. But the Sunni area known as the “triangle of death” is a longtime al-Qaida stronghold.

If the claim proves true, it would mark one of the most brazen attacks by the umbrella Sunni insurgent group against U.S. forces here. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for the U.S. military, said 4,000 U.S. troops backed by aircraft and intelligence units were scouring the farming area as the military made “every effort available to find our missing soldiers.”

President Bush was also getting regular updates on the missing soldiers, said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council in Washington.

The early morning attack on two U.S. military vehicles outside of Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, left the bodies of the four U.S. soldiers and their translator badly burned.

Caldwell said the bodies of the interpreter and three of the slain soldiers had been identified, but the military was still working to identify the fifth.

Later Sunday, the Islamic State of Iraq posted a brief message on a militant Web site saying it was responsible for the attack and held an unspecified number of U.S. soldiers. The group promised more details later.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/14/2007 at 01:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Terrorists •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - May 13, 2007

Sunday Editorial

You can call it “going wobbly” or you can call them “surrender monkeys” if you wish but it must be noted that at any other time in our nation’s storied past they would have been called “traitors”, and at the very least, arrested and tried for sedition. George Washington just had them shot. Andrew Jackson was more direct and shot them himself. Abraham Lincoln had them locked up and clapped in irons for the duration. Arrested as spies, internment camps, sentenced to death and actually executed - that is how people of this ilk have been dealt with in the past. What happened to change all that?

I agree with Mike Reagan that the Leftists (Democrats) have gone all wobbly ... again. Vietnam permanently scarred the Democrat Party and allowed a complete takeover by Liberal defeatists and socialist snake-oil salesmen. “Going wobbly” has become a habit they can’t shrug off. It’s the monkey on their back and even though some in that party may recognize the destructive nature of the habit, they’re hooked.

So they go into denial and pretend to fight the addiction to surrender when in actuality they’re just fighting attempts by others (read: Conservatives, Republicans) to help them get over their Vietnam Syndrome. That’s where the real problem comes in. The rest of us conservatives and moderates are also going wobbly. We have treated these cheesy surrender monkeys in our midst with kid gloves and refused to give them the tough love they need to recover. In short, we let them get away with ridiculous pronouncements, asinine legal maneuvers and even political chicanery.

The overall end result of all this wobbliness is that sooner or later a lot of Americans are going to die. Let me repeat that ... a lot of Americans are going to die. That is no scare tactic - it is a fact. Those who hate us and wish for our destruction are not going wobbly. If anything, they are regrouping and gathering strength.

On December 7, 1941 a little over 1,500 military personnel and 48 civilians were ambushed and murdered at Pearl Harbor by outside forces bent on our destruction and another 1,100 wounded in an unprovoked act of war. Our nation rose up and fought back. Spies were shot, traitors were locked up and the enemy was destroyed.

On September 11, 2001 over 2,800 American civilians were ambushed and murdered in our nation’s largest city by outside forces bent on our destruction and over 3,000 American children were left without a parent. Since then we have tracked the enemy down, beaten him back, destroyed his base of operations in Afghanistan and taken the fight to Iraq to begin the task of making sure we will not be attacked again from radical forces in the Middle East.

Then suddenly we all went wobbly. The Democrats are only doing what the surrender monkey on their back forces them to do. They have no backbone for a fight unless it’s against a weak opponent ... and right now that weak opponent is you and me and the rest of us who should know better. The predetermined outcome of this wobbliness by all of us is most definitely going to be another attack - in the form of a suitcase nuke or biological agent smuggled into the country and used to kill not just thousands but hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans. More American children will be left without a parent ... and they will be asking us why we didn’t do something before it was too late. I can’t wait to hear your answer ....

_{Gary McCoy - Cagle Cartoons}

Going Wobbly
-- by Michael Reagan

Maggie Thatcher had a great line about politicians who lose their nerve when faced with a big problem: she warned them against going wobbly.

That warning would be lost on the members of today’s national Democratic Party. They’ve gone far beyond that stage. Nowadays they have no problem with being seen as America’s surrender monkeys.

Covering their eyes so they won’t be able to see how their policies will bring on a holocaust that will afflict the Middle East, and their ears so they won’t hear the cries of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans as they are butchered by al Qaeda and Iranian terrorists, they are willing to stand by while chaos reigns in the entire region, a major part of our oil supply is cut off, and terrorism comes home to our front door.

Their latest gambit, carried out under the guise of an organization of veterans calling themselves VoteVet.org, a group affiliated with the Soros-funded far-left MoveOn.org – a Democratic front group—has sponsored a TV ad featuring retired Gen. John Batiste, Gen. Paul Eaton and failed Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark.

The ad opens with a clip of President Bush saying, “I have always said that I will listen to the requests of our commanders on the ground.”

In the ad Batiste says, “Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women.”

What Batiste is really saying is that President Bush doesn’t listen to him, which, thankfully, is true. Instead, the President is listening to his top general in Iraq, General Petraeus, and the other generals there.  They are on the ground, know what’s going on there, are following a carefully thought out strategy, and they are convinced they can bring about a political solution – which the Democrats are demanding - by first making it possible by wiping out al Qaeda and other foreign fighters and quelling the sectarian violence which stands in the way of political unity among all Iraqis.

The blatantly obvious political motive behind the group was noticed by retired Gen. William Nash, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He told ABC, “When you become part of the political process, you’re taking some part of your uniform into that arena and that is an issue that many soldiers, whether they be active or retired, would have a problem with.”

The group’s ads target GOP House members Mary Bono of California, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Randy Kuhl and James Walsh of New York, Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, Timothy Johnson of Illinois, Mike Rogers and Fred Upton of Michigan and Michael Castle of Delaware.

Recognizing the real source of the ads, English’s spokeswoman Julia Wanzco sneered, “The congressman has long stated that he is for a political settlement not a surge, and at the end of the day, these ads are more about cheap Democratic political stunts than about solving the actual problem.”

Solving the problem, however, is not what this is all about. Sen. Harry Reid, the hapless Democrat majority leader in the Senate, made it quite plain what his party’s motive in all but surrendering to Osama bin Laden is all about: winning more seats in the Senate next year. National security be damned; full speed aft.

When he had the gall to all but tell al Qaeda that they have won and we have lost, he in effect told out troops – you know, all those soldiers and Marines over there in harm’s way—that they are wasting their time risking life and limb; that’s it’s a losing battle. What a great morale builder that was!

In using front groups like MoveOn.org and VoteVets.org to spew their venom the Democrats have shown that they learned a lesson from the Soviets, who all but created the strategy of hiding behind innocent-sounding fronts here in America.

It’s too bad that officers with splendid military records are allowing themselves to be the patsies for the surrender monkeys.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s newest book, “Twice Adopted.” E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. ©2007 Mike Reagan.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/13/2007 at 11:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • Iraq •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 11, 2007

America Alone?

Meet the new face of our ally in the War on Terror in Iraq. This is Gordon Brown, the new resident of Number 10 Downing Street. Tony Blair hasn’t even managed to clear his bags out of his office yet and the new Prime Minister is already making noise about “reversing Blair’s policies in Iraq” and leaving the US to manage things on our own.

Prime Minister Brown seems to be more concerned about saving Britain’s health care system and “economic development” than he is about Islamic radicals and the growing problems in the Middle East. I’m sure he has Britain’s best interests at heart and I wish him well. Thus it must be.

Perhaps his next announcement will include a note from Osama Bin Laden and an announcement of “peace in our time”? We shall see.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. And so, the next chapter is brought to a close and a new chapter begins in the long history between the United States Of America and the United Kingdom. May God have mercy on us all ...

Brown Reviews Strategy On Iraq
_{(LONDON TIMES) - May 12, 2007}

Gordon Brown plans to fly to Iraq to review British policy and troop numbers after using the launch of his leadership campaign yesterday to try to make a decisive break with the Blair era.

The Chancellor said he would govern Britain in a different way – “I want to lead a government humble enough to know its place” – as he lambasted the excessive use of spin and the cult of celebrity, and pledged to restore trust in Labour and politics.

But he also accepted for the first time that mistakes had been made in Iraq, saying that much more must be done to promote economic development and political reconciliation.

His decision to make an early visit to see army chiefs on the ground and the Iraqi Government will raise speculation that Mr Brown would like to speed up the timetable for British withdrawal. British forces are due to hand over control of Basra to Iraqi forces by the end of the year, when troop levels will be reduced from about 7,000 to 2,000.

British forces are due to pull out of Saddam’s former palace in the centre of the city this summer, and eventually all British forces and the consulate will be relocated to the airport.

One of the Chancellor’s allies said last night: “His current assessment is that the the timetable is right. But such matters must be kept under review and that will be among the purposes of his visit, although his big concern is to make the people of Iraq feel they have a stake in their country through economic development.”

A change of policy on Iraq would be considered a dramatic shift from Mr Blair’s stance, but diplomatic sources said that the strong US criticism of President Bush for sending 25,000 more troops to Baghdad gives Mr Brown an opportunity to accelerate the withdrawal process.

Mr Brown could go to Iraq within weeks if the Left fails to raise enough votes from MPs to challenge him for the Labour party leadership. But, if there is a Continued on page 2, col 4 contest he would not be able to use taxpayers’ money for a government trip that might be seen to boost his standing.

Mr Brown used his launch speech in London to distance himself from elements of Mr Blair’s legacy: “As a politician I have never sought the public eye for its own sake. I have never believed presentation should be a substitute for policy. I do not believe politics is about celebrity.”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/11/2007 at 11:21 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - May 09, 2007

Surge Report

I know most of you out there reading this stupid blog are like me and served in some branch of the US military. Some of you even managed to stick around and endure the horse-shit for 20-30 years before being released on good behavior with a pat on the back, a somewhat decent pension and a Pavlovian response every time you see a US flag. Yeah, I know. Been there, done that.

Today we are gathered here in the ready room to review the current SITREP in Iraq. I will turn this cluster-f**k over to Lt. General Martin E. Dempsey in just a few minutes but first I want to emphasize a few key points before the good General enlightens you. It is our hope that some of this intel may escape this room and find its way to the manure pile offices of Congress who have no clue how armies work but somehow manage to think of themselves as experts ... in much the same way pigs consider themselves experts on pork chops.

Now ... think back to when you working men and women (that does not include any of you former officers out there so STFU and sit down). When you first arrived at boot camp there were a group of hideous monsters awaiting you there who were quite prepared to hate your very guts before they even laid eyes on you and for several weeks and months they proved it over and over again with physical and mental torture that the Marquis De Sade never envisioned.

Then you finally escaped and started doing a regular 9 to 5 job (well, actually it turned out to be 5 to 9 but who’s quibbling - they only guaranteed you four hours of sleep a day so quityerbitchin’). Day in and day out these monsters dogged your every step, patted you on the back when you least expected it and kicked your ass with regularity. They kept you moving and motivated. They kept you alive. Most of the time you hated them back but you gradually learned how to deal with them and even get along with them, or at the very least to stay under their radar.

Eventually, you became one of them. Shit happens, don’t it?

What monsters am I talking about? These monsters are what every successful military force that ever existed has in common from Sargon IV to Alcibiades to Leonidas to Caesar to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Wellington to Washington to Patton. They are the Non-Comissioned Officers. That’s SERGEANT to you, maggot! Not “Sarge” and sure as hell not “Sir.” Either one will get you a butt whippin’ and or extra duty.

So what do NCO’s have to do with Iraq and the current situation? Pay attention, this is important: NCO’S ARE NOT CREATED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH NOR ARE THEY GROWN IN TEST TUBES OR SPIT OUT OF IVY LEAGUE COLLEGES. The pure and simple fact is they have to be matured like fine wine, good cheese or cold beer. It just takes time and experience. Period.

The problem we face in Iraq is that Iraqi men are being recruited in record numbers and they are going through training. The upper echelons (read: useless officers and/or “REMF’s") are primarily leftovers from the previous regime who are handling paperwork and generally staying out of the way. Do you see a gap in that military organization? Pay attention, you there in the back row! THERE ARE NO NCO’S and there won’t be for some time! GET A FREAKIN’ CLUE!

I will now step aside and let the good General continue this briefing. Pay attention and sit up straight. YES, YOU PRIVATE!

Institutional Competence Slow, But Growing, General Says
WASHINGTON (CENTCOM) - May 7, 2007

Coalition experts have identified trouble areas in the training regimen for the Iraqi security forces but see cumulative progress overall, the top U.S. training official in Iraq said.

The Iraqi police and army are short of functioning effectively as independent institutions, Army Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the commander of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq, told online journalists and “bloggers” in a conference call May 4. However, the Iraqi forces improve tactically from month to month, he said.

“We’ve got some things that are going pretty well at the tactical level; we’ve got some things that are going pretty well at the institutional level; and the challenge now is to kind of pull it together and plug it in” so that the system performs fluidly from top to bottom, Dempsey said. “We’re not there yet. There’s still some holes in the system,” he said. “We’ve got them, I think, pretty well identified and are moving toward it.”

In both institutions, Dempsey said, the most encouraging signs so far have come from individual units. There are always some poor performers, the general explained, though, “in every case we’ve got a group of units and leaders who are essentially acknowledging their responsibilities and their accountability in a way that simply we didn’t see a year ago.”

That sense of responsibility dissipates to an extent up the chain of command and into the logistics, communications and intelligence support areas, Dempsey said. He blamed the problem on a legacy of poor leadership tracing back to the government of Saddam Hussein. “The higher up you run in the echelons of command, the more the vulnerabilities of leadership tend to become evident,” Dempsey said.

Most of the senior leaders of the Iraqi army and police are from the old regime, he noted, and “old habits die hard.” One reason for hope, the general explained, is that the Iraqi ministers of defense and interior are keen to overcome such problems.

In addition, Dempsey said, experience on the battlefield has imparted quick lessons. He said operational planning has improved rapidly in recent months. Before “there was a tendency to dramatically oversimplify things when they would conceive of a mission,” Dempsey said of the Iraqi leadership. “There wasn’t much attention to detail. Now they appreciate the intricacies,” he said.

The benefits of that experience are paying out in the current Baghdad surge, Dempsey said. He explained that even six months ago it would have been impossible to bring 5,300 Iraqi soldiers into Baghdad from other parts of the country, but now the Iraqi army is already in its second rotation.

That the Iraqis are performing so well is exceptional considering they are graduating from their training academies into a war, Dempsey noted, but the fact that the security situation is so fluid means the needs of the force must be continuously reassessed, he said.

After studying the results of a 2006 review, Dempsey said, U.S. officials worked with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in determining the need to transition away from a short-war strategy.

“We made some assumptions in the early days about declining levels of violence and a short war,” Dempsey said. “I think that together last year we came to the kind of mutual conclusion that it could very well be that the levels of violence will be sustained and that this terror threat, this insurgent threat and the threat of sectarian violence could last in Iraq for some time.”

The challenge now before the Iraqi army, Dempsey explained, is to determine the necessary size of the force in relation to the threat. Balancing the necessary training requirements to properly build the force against the demands of war has been difficult, Dempsey said, particularly in regard to developing an appropriately sized noncommissioned officer corps.

Despite a range of military academies around Iraq, he said, “they are having a very tough time taking their aspiring or their rising leaders out of the fight.” As a result, Dempsey said, the Iraqis “find themselves to be stretched rather thin to do all the things they feel that they need to do to control their battle space.

“We know how many NCOs we need for this army; we’ve got the system in place; we’ve got the courses in place; they’ve got a good cadre in place; it’s a good curriculum; but they can’t unplug from the fight as they would like to do, and so we’re coming up a bit short there,” he said.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/09/2007 at 01:24 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

They Never Learn

The biggest complaint Democrats and the Liberal media have always had with President Bush is that he is “stubborn, intractable and refuses to change course in the face of overwhelming odds.” Well, what do you call a Democrat-controlled Congress that just had a bullshit, pork-filled war appropriations bill vetoed if they come right back and do the same thing over and over again? I call it pathetic pussies pursuing popular votes with partisan politics. Doesn’t that just “P” you off?

Now they’re proposing to fund the troops in the field only two months at a time - with a pop quiz being given to the Iraqi government every sixty days and a grade of C- or lower means no more allowance or milk money. I have a better idea ... why don’t we pay these bastards in Congress two months at a time and if they don’t act like adults, pass real honest legislation and do the job the Constitution assigns them to do - then we cut their pay and send them home. What say you?

House Bill Ties War Funding to Iraq Benchmarks
Measure Would Free Half the Money Now, Require a Second Vote for Approval in July
_{(WASHINGTON POST) - Wednesday, May 9, 2007}

A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve.

The House measure, which could come to a vote as early as tomorrow, would substantially raise the pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to meet lagging commitments—including new laws on oil revenue and de-Baathification, constitutional revisions, provincial elections and the demobilization of militias—that Bush has said are crucial to the success of the U.S. military strategy.

The plan would make about $43 billion of the administration’s requested $95.5 billion immediately available to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, train troops from both nations and pay for other military needs. Congress’s approval of the rest, intended to last through September, would await Iraqi passage of restructuring laws, or Bush’s ability to prove that significant progress had been made. The July vote would mark the first time a mandatory funding cutoff would come before Congress.

Most of the anticipated Iraqi changes are locked in disputes among and within regional and sectarian groups, and some have moved further from agreement in recent weeks. A deadline of next Tuesday for presenting a constitutional revision package to the Iraqi Parliament is likely to be only partially met, Bush administration officials said. A group of oil and gas laws due by the end of the month remains mired in debate.

Administration officials also acknowledge there has been no progress on a de-Baathification law that would permit former members of Saddam Hussein’s ruling party—most of them Sunnis—greater access to government and security jobs, or toward disarming and demobilizing Shiite militias.

Delays and setbacks in promulgating the restructuring legislation, let alone passing and implementing it, was a major subject at last week’s “neighbors conference” on Iraq held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. As Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors sharply questioned the commitment of the Maliki government, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recognized the slow progress and pleaded for patience and help: “If Iraq fails to achieve these goals of stability and democracy, we will all pay.” Most of the Arabs dislike Maliki and consider him a pawn of Iran’s Shiite rulers.

Administration officials, while conceding Iraqi delays, described the Democrats’ proposals as dangerous, and even worse than the “redeployment” conditions in the vetoed bill. “Now we’re in Excedrin headache No. 1,” a State Department official said. “How do you fight a war two months at a time?”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/09/2007 at 07:54 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - May 08, 2007

Media Vultures And Euro Jackals

Far be it from me to insult the vultures and other carrion eaters of the animal kingdom but the similarities between these creatures and the Liberal American press is astonishing at time. Case in point: the NY TIMES.

What? Did you actually think I could go an entire week without blasting these bloviating blowhards? Guess again. They are in the BMEWS radar this time because they are lazily circling in the sky above the World Bank. They are marking the spot and targeting their next meal after the jackals and hyenas in Europe snap and claw at the heels of their latest prey ... Paul Wolfowitz, who is the US picked head of that organization.

I don’t know what jungle animal to compare Wolfowitz to so you’ll have to pick your own anthropomorphism. (Is that a real word? The spell-checker passed it. Well, I’ll be. Anyway ...)

In case you went out for peanuts and beer during the last three innings, let me bring you up to date:

• President Bush appointed Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in 2005. As is customary, the US picks the head of the World Bank and European leaders pick the head of the sister organization International Monetary Fund.


• When he arrived at the World Bank, Wolfowitz immediately notified the bank’s board that there was a conflict of interest because his girlfriend Shaha Ali Riza, who had been with the bank for seven years, held a high-level position and the slightest hint or appearance of favoritism toward his main squeeze might hamper his ability to do his job.


• Wolfowitz then made arrangements to get his gal a job a job at the US State Department and, to compensate her for ripping her out of a good career at the World Bank, she was given a hefty pay raise and put on a good promotion track at State.

You would think that would be the end of it, wouldn’t you? Mais non, ma petite merde! Les Europeons cried “FOUL!” and the NY TIMES immediately seized on the story and has been running with it for a week, carefully guiding the rabid pack dogs in for the kill.

Now, let’s examine the real reason why the Euro-Beasts and the NY SLIMES have their knickers in a wad.

• Paul Wolfowitz was chosen by President Bush to be Deputy Secretary Of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld soon after Bush took office in 2001. Strike One.


• Wolfowitz is believed by the Bush-bashers to have been behind the whole “Weapons Of Mass Destruction” argument about going into Iraq and his subsequent support for major wanker Ahmed Chalabi and the initial failures to stabilize Iraq immediately after the invasion, have been pinned on him since Day One. Strike Two.


• After Rumsfeld’s departure, President Bush sent Wolfowitz to the World Bank, whose board is comprised mostly of anti-American Euro-Jackals who take offense at the drop of a hat and don’t mind whining to the NY TIMES about every little thing. Strike Three.

Starting to get the picture yet? The story has been front-page news on the NY TIMES and WASHINGTON POST for over a week and they’re shagging this story like a horny chihuahua on a bedpost. Wolfowitz is a Republican, he was involved in Iraq, he is good buddies with Rumsfeld, Bush likes him. One more thing: Wolfowitz comes from a Polish-Jewish family. SACRE BLEU!

To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “Ah, how do they hate thee? Let me count the ways.” Go take a look at today’s installment of “The Wolfowitz Saga” at the NY TIMES and keep the above in mind as you watch the Liberals and Euro-Peons rewrite recent events, point pudgy little fingers and make baseless accusations and hide behind a mask of duplicity and deceit. Here are a few choice excerpts:

Deal Is Offered for Chief’s Exit at World Bank
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) — May 8, 2007

Leading governments of Europe, mounting a new campaign to push Paul D. Wolfowitz from his job as World Bank president, signaled Monday that they were willing to let the United States choose the bank’s next chief, but only if Mr. Wolfowitz stepped down soon, European officials said.

European officials had previously indicated that they wanted to end the tradition of the United States picking the World Bank leader. But now the officials are hoping to enlist American help in persuading Mr. Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily, rather than be rebuked or ousted.

Well before Mr. Wolfowitz took office in 2005, leading European countries had begun agitating to discard the custom that had existed since the 1940s of the United States choosing the bank president. The United States has that prerogative because it contributes the largest share of the bank’s financing.

The committee’s finding of guilt against Mr. Wolfowitz was tempered by a finding that the bank shared at least some blame for the failure of Mr. Wolfowitz to comply with its rules. According to people familiar with the report, it said the advice from ethics officials at the bank to Mr. Wolfowitz was less than clear and evidently subject to misinterpretation. Nevertheless, the report was clear in its conclusion that Mr. Wolfowitz breached his obligations.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/08/2007 at 03:08 PM   
Filed Under: • Economics • EUro-peons • Iraq • Media-Bias •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 03, 2007

Congress Blinks

OK, I give up. What exactly did Democrats just accomplish by going toe-to-toe with the President over the Iraq spending bill? Other than faking out their anti-war base by appearing to defy the Commander In Chief it was an exercise in futility as they knew darn well they didn’t have the votes to override a veto.

Meanwhile the Department of Defense is shuffling money from one pile to another, delaying projects temporarily to keep troops in the field and those troops referred to are sitting out there in the dust and heat wondering WTF is going on with the retards in Washington.

So now they go back to the drawing board and dicker and bargain some more and odds are that a good deal of pork will be added AGAIN to grease the wheels of “bipartisan cooperation” (which is just another name for “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours")

I can’t believe we actually pay these darn fool idiots to sit up there in Washington and play these games. I want a refund, dammit. If they’re not going to actually try to legislate and do something productive then send the rascals packing and let’s vote for another bunch - and keep cycling the idiots in and out until we get some results. Sooner or later we might be able to find somebody capable of acting like an adult.

Ya think? It’s worth a try ....

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails
(WASHINGTON POST) - Thursday, May 3, 2007

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”

“We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”

Bush said he is “confident that we can reach agreement,” and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties.

But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, “The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk.”

While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill, such language is likely to appear in a defense policy measure that is expected to reach the House floor in two weeks, just when a second war funding bill could be ready for a House vote. Democrats want the next spending measure to pass before Congress recesses on May 25 for Memorial Day weekend.

Beyond that, Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq—such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias—to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday’s White House meeting, participants said. “I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,” said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. “We didn’t go into any kind of detail,” Durbin said.

Just four Republicans supported the first version of the spending bill: Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.). But a growing number of GOP lawmakers want language that would hold the administration and the Iraqi government more accountable.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/03/2007 at 12:28 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Politics •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner