Voting While White

Wes Pruden
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

PRUDEN: Shunning the party of whiners

We're not yet a nation wholly of whiners, but some of our congresspersons are working on it. Democrats who should have been taking a victory lap spent a week cowering in fear of the contents of a tea cup. No wonder real men — mostly but, by no means all, white — are shunning the Democrats.

The polling gurus are finding that millions of the white men who helped put Barack Obama in the White House are leaving the Democrats in great numbers, and this could lead to really bad news in November. Gallup finds that white male support for a Democratic Congress has fallen 8 percentage points since last summer, while the support of women has remained remarkably steady. White women who voted for Mr. Obama continue to support him, but only 38 percent of white men support him now. Unless the president and his party find a way to reverse this trend they must prepare for an epic bath nine months hence.

Accomplishing such a turnaround would require first of all for Democrats to pipe down about what a tough life they have. Life is real, often hard, and, as Damon Runyon famously said to a whiner at the poker table, "three out of three people die, so shut up and deal." Democrats in Congress who got their way in the health care "reform" debate are frightened now that the people they abused are angry and determined to do something about it. With the help of the compliant "mainstream" media, they have created the specter of a tsunami of hate, bigotry, racism, slander, rock-throwing, spitting, irritable bowel syndrome and seven-year itch. Sarah Palin has got the Democrats particularly spooked.

Read the rest here

The view of Congress from THIS vet..........

h/t The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Quagmire in Iraq - We Must Retreat........

"We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw."

Who said this? Senator Reid? Cindy Sheehan? Nancy Pelosi?

Nope.

Go read it.

I told you so.

Democrats say "Thank you" to the troops

via Redstate:

Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress decided to take a different track: voting down a "clean" veterans funding bill while pushing for our troops to withdraw and surrender for the 58th time this year.

This is not some sort of cruel joke or hoax. Republicans tried today to finish work on legislation which would fund the veterans bill without Washington inserted pork. It was turned back for the tenth time in 146 days. (votes here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here)

Need I say anything more?

Democrats take away Veterans' benefits

via Times Gazette in Ohio,
While I don't care if Filipino vets get benefits, since the Phillipines were American Territory at the time, don't take away my benefits. Cancel some pork instead.

Democrats give away veterans' benefits

Rep. Mike Turner

As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs (VA) Committee, the work of helping to ensure that those who have worn a military uniform receive the benefits and respect to which they were promised, is often rewarding.

A recent Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting took an unusual twist, which many people are surprised to learn about when I tell them.

This story is about a two-part process that led to unbelievable decisions. First, the Veterans' Committee took away benefits from some very deserving American veterans. Second, the committee gave benefits to veterans of another country who don't live in the United States, and never have lived in this country or been American citizens. I opposed both actions.

I am against the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 760). This legislation will provide benefits to Filipino World War II veterans.

These veterans were members of the Philippines military. They fought in the Pacific Theater, presumably on behalf of their native country.

They are citizens of the Philippines and not U.S. citizens. While these Filipino troops may have fought bravely, side-by-side, with American soldiers, they should be looking to the Philippines for veterans' benefits.

The United States has obligations to American veterans. We should not be held responsible for the benefits of the Philippines or any additional countries.

The Filipino veterans' provisions in HR 760 are similar to a plan passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

If signed into law, it would provide full veterans' status to World War II era Filipino soldiers and even their survivors.

This would include pay for service related disabilities, survivor pay for service-connected deaths, as well as pensions and death benefits.

Those who are living in the Philippines, and are not U.S. citizens, would receive $6,000 to $8,400. Low-income widows would receive $3,600.

I have witnessed some contentious hearings in my years in public service. VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif., was determined to pass the Filipino Veterans Equity Act. When the exchanges between the chairman and ranking member (and former chairman) Steve Buyer, R-Ind., became too heated, Filner ordered a recess to plot strategy with the Democratic majority.

The measure passed on a straight party-line vote and Filner refused to recognize any additional Republican amendments.

Providing veterans' benefits to Filipino service members is only half of the issue.

Perhaps more egregious is how the Democrats offset the cost of the new benefits. Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains.

In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.

Paying Filipino service members who served alongside American troops in the Philippines during World War II sets a dangerous precedent. There were certainly brave Koreans and Vietnamese who served alongside Americans during the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts.

There are some Afghanis and Iraqis who are serving nobly with their American counterparts today. The Filipino Veterans Equity Act makes it logical for the United States to pay foreign fighters from these conflicts future benefits as well.

It is outrageous that U.S. veterans who have a high level of disability have lost up to $2,200 per month in benefits.

Rather than using U.S. tax dollars to pay American veterans who have sacrificed, Chairman Filner and the Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee decided that paying non-U.S. citizens was a more important national priority.

This does not serve our nation.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, represents Ohio's Third Congressional District.

An ugly narrative

Over at Commentary Magazine, in their Contentions section is a fascinating article on why the a narrative that the Democrats would be seen as cowardly, short-sighted, fools that lost Iraq, if they continue their present course, accurate. The question: is the phrase "ugly narrative" in Mr. Rauch's column in the National Journal, actually code for "accurate?" Here is a just one comment by the author, Peter Wehner:

Mr. Rauch doesn’t explain (perhaps because he can’t) why he considers this narrative “ugly”—a word clearly meant to suggest partisan political strategy—rather than accurate. The reality is that we know, from their own past words, that weakness emboldens jihadists.

The comments by readers are even better. This one by Fat Man deserves its own column. I hope he writes elsewhere.

Fat Man Says:

“Isn’t cowardice a pretty nasty charge? Aren’t there reasons other than “because we have been bloodied” (as he puts it in his post above) to think a change of strategy might be warranted?”
Since I am an anonymous dog on the internet. I can slime with impunity, or if you agree with me, tell the truth without fear or favor.

The core groups of the Democrat party, are, and have been since 1972, committed to the destruction of American power in world affairs. Some of them, because they believe that they are doing the rest of the world a favor, some of them, because they sought to protect Communism around the world, and some of them because they are fools or cowards.

In any event, I do not question their patriotism, there is no question about it — they hate the United States of America. They have no patriotism towards it, they never have and never will. They believe that patriotism is, like religion, a sign of defective mental development, probably associated with iodine deficiency, like goiter.
The War in Iraq, in its post 2003 invasion phase, was overdetermined to provoke these people. First, their formative political experience was defeating the United States in South Vietnam. For many of them it was the most important thing that they ever did. Second, in the aftermath of the close election in 2000, they had accumulated an almost psychotic hatred of George Bush, largely for cultural and partisan reasons.

If there had been no 9/11, these Democrats, would have poured all of their venom into the No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits. The rest of the country would have passed out in front of their television sets, drooling, eyes rolled up in their sockets.

But 9/11 did happen, and Michael Moore contextualized it for the Democrat mentality best. Why, he asked did they attack New York, didn’t they know that Bush had lost in New York. The resident useful idiots, like Susan Sontag (may her name be blotted out) and Stanley Fish wrote op-eds in the NYTimes explaining why it was all our fault.

The Democrats in Congress, save for a handful of diehards, voted to approve the war in Iraq, based on their courageous assessment of the polling data. What has changed since then is the polling, which gave heart to the ideological core of Democrats.

Among Democrats, it is now Bush’s War. Hillary demanded that he end it before she is coronated. The problem with this approach is that wars do not belong to Presidents, they belong to countries. The United States will loose the Iraq War only if it retreats. A retreat that is simply unwarranted by any state of facts.
The facts are that no American unit has been defeated in any battle by any enemy unit. The only thing the enemy has been able to do is blow up mines and suicide bomb civilians. The cost of this war in American casualties has been very low, far lower than any previous war the United States has fought. The monetary cost is trivial — less than one percent of GDP.

We may well need more more money and more soldiers, and we will certainly need more time to win this war, but it must be won. The consequences of loosing are far too dire. They include a victorious nuclear Iran, and a steroid infused jihadist movement. It will be a maxim of world affairs that the United States betrays its allies and quakes before its enemies. The world will be a vastly more dangerous place, where any adventurer will believe that the United States is a pitiful helpless giant, and who will act accordingly.

The only legitimate subject of public discourse in this situation is how to win. The Democrats who want to talk about how to retreat are cowards, and worse than that — traitors.

Truth hurts, don’t it?

Hollywood Promising More Anti-War Movies

Hollywood Promising More Anti-War Movies


Hat Tip: Drudge

Drudge linked to an article this morning in the New York Times where the Hollywood elites in the movie industry promise to be even more brazenly anti-war and anti-American than they have already been (If that’s possible!)

“LOS ANGELES, July 25 — On a night four years ago, five soldiers back from three months in Iraq went drinking at a Hooters restaurant and a topless bar near Fort Benning, Ga.
Before the night was over, one of them, Specialist Richard R. Davis, was dead of at least 33 stab wounds, his body doused with lighter fluid and burned. Two of the group would eventually be convicted of the murder, another pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and the last confessed to concealing the crime.
Now some in Hollywood want moviegoers to decide if the killing is emblematic of a war gone bad, part of a new and perhaps risky willingness in the entertainment business to push even the touchiest debates about post-9/11 security, Iraq and the troops’ status from the confines of documentaries into the realm of mainstream political drama.”

Personally, I don’t know how anyone could have looked at “Jarhead” and felt Hollywood was patting our troops on the back. If you haven’t seen it, don’t bother. Our soldiers are portrayed as sexually crazed, murderous killers whose great hope in life in to get laid one more time, and, oh yeah, maybe I can kill someone today. As the end credits roll you don’t exactly feel like cheering to be an American. Boy, we’ve come a long way from “Missing In Action,” “Rambo 2” and “Uncommon Valor.” (And this is giving these movies the benefit of the doubt; the story lines revolve around an American government covering up or refusing to rescue soldiers in captivity. As a redeeming quality, they at least feature a main character who says “screw you” to the government and goes off to rescue their comrades at arms on their own, or with limited help.)

Hollywood is (or should be) thanking the Bush administration for one thing, though: giving them a new setting for their anti-war propaganda; they can finally throw away all those sets and stages of Vietnam. The list of movies NOT encouraging you to raise your flag on Memorial Day:

Full Metal Jacket
Apocalypse Now
and the award winning Platoon. (Never has a movie successfully gone to such great lengths to show the real enemy is the soldier beside you, not the one firing the AK-47.)
Throw in the myriad of comedy’s that show American soldiers stealing everything in Bagdad, or invading third-world countries and you can see how we have gotten to where we are. Yes, I know the latter movie was a comedy and was meant to be funny to us, but run that movie in, say, Fallujah, and it would be the “shock and awe” equivalent of our Hogan’s Heroes did with our opinion of the Germans. Add that to the fact that laughter, much less humor is a foreign concept to jihadists and what you have is propaganda, not a fun night in front of the tube.)

In it’s dedication to broadcasting it’s operation plans to the enemy, the left’s beginning salvo of rocket fire to frag the American psyche for a left-wing political victory begins on Sept 14th with the release of Warner Brothers’ “In the Valley of Elah”:

“On Sept. 14, Warner Independent Pictures expects to release “In the Valley of Elah,” a drama inspired by the Davis murder, written and directed by Paul Haggis, whose “Crash” won the Academy Award for best picture in 2006. The film stars Tommy Lee Jones as a retired veteran who defies Army bureaucrats and local officials in a search for his son’s killers. In one of the movie’s defining images, the American flag is flown upside down in the heartland, the signal of extreme distress.”
You have got to be kidding me!! The only people I know of who use this form of “extreme distress” are gullible left-wing nut jobs who thought “Loose Change” was great, the Palestinian “militants” really want peace, and illegal aliens who are afraid we will actually ask them to come through the front door into this country a few at a time instead of bum-rushing the border.

What else is on tap? Hollywood will revise and re-introduce the military victim again; more veterans coming home mal-adjusted, unable to adapt and cope with society, and waiting for the least little thing to set them off into a murderous rampage on men, women, children, and pets: more vibrant and frightening versions of “Born on the 4th of July” and the first “Rambo.” That will make you feel real good the next time your daughter brings home a sharp-dressed career oriented military man. (You know the only safe bets for well adjusted grandchildren are the long-haired dope-smoking rockers who are more concerned with the preservation of brush fields in Brazil than putting your grandkids into a private school that will teach them to actually read and write at their grade level.)

More movies to look forward to:
* “New Line Cinema will release “Rendition,” in which Reese Witherspoon plays a woman whose Egyptian-born husband is snared by a runaway counterterrorism apparatus.”
* “In “Grace Is Gone,” directed by James C. Strouse and due in October from the Weinstein Company, John Cusack and two daughters struggle with the loss of a wife and mother who is killed on duty.”
* Kimberly Peirce’s “Stop-Loss,” set for release in March by Paramount, meanwhile, casts Ryan Phillippe as a veteran who defies an order that would send him back to Iraq.
* “Paul Greengrass, the director of “The Bourne Ultimatum,” in which the bad guys belong to a similar rogue unit, is adapting Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s book about the Green Zone in Baghdad, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” for Universal Pictures.”
* “Brian De Palma’s “Redacted,” focusing on an Army squad that persecutes an Iraqi family, is to be released in December by Magnolia Pictures.”
* “Sony Pictures is developing a film based on the story of Richard A. Clarke, the former national security official and Bush administration critic.”

Neither is Hollywood hiding the fact that these movies are designed to move the audience to question American policy toward the Iraq War, our involvement in Iraq, and the current occupants of the "Oval Office." Indeed several movies are timed to come out during party elections, and the general election for President. Scott Ruddin who produced the movie “Stop Loss” says about the timing of the upcoming anti-war movies, since we are still involved in the conflict: “Media in general responds much more quickly [to current events] than ever before” adding “Why shouldn’t movies do the same.” His movie is also one timed to come out during the presidential campaign. Director Paul Haggis (he directed “Crash” and has been noted for his opposition to the war) says “This is not one of our brightest moments in America.” “We should not have gotten involved.” He goes even further revealing to writer Michael Cieply that “Valley of Elah” “is meant to raise questions about ‘what it does to these kids’ to be deployed in a situation where enemies are often indistinguishable from neutral civilians, and the rules of engagement may force decisions that are difficult to live with.”
So the latest attempt will be to use “the tear-jerker” and the difficulty of adjusting to life with war injuries and amputations, to roll back support for a war that was meant to secure our country and the world against terrorists who want to have “September 11th”-style attacks every day.

So what’s the answer here? Every red-blooded American who believes in the troop, the war, and/or the president, is going to have to go into flag waving overtime, to compete with the added onslaught of negativity and anti-war/anti-America fervor that will kick up starting in only a few weeks. We are going to have to take our actions to the people and make them as high-profile as possible. Don’t miss an opportunity to speak out because your opposition is not. You might even have to politely get “in the face” of your local activists, but meet them with believe, courage, and conviction. Your cause is right, theirs, though with the best of intentions, maybe, IS NOT.

Hillary and Obama: Support The Troops, Leave Them Broke

Here's more from the Democrats who want your vote in November '08:

"WASHINGTON - Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.
"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal."

Now where did I put those John Kerry flip flops....

Biden: We're Going to Shove It Down His Throat

Joe Biden must have eaten his Wheaties this moring. He's feeling so frisky that he thinks he can MAKE the President sign their surrender package. Via Drudge:

" "Blunt talk from Joe Biden, picked up by C-Span answering a man's question at Jim Clyburn's fish fry April 27 in Columbia, S.C.
Biden is asked what he'll do when Bush, as is expected, vetoes the Iraq funding bill.
First, he talks about his son, and the equipment soldiers need -- "The idea that we're not building new Humvees with the V-shaped things is just crap. Kids are dying that don't have to die."
And: "Second thing is, we're going to shove it down his throat." "

This is what happens when a liberal can't win an argument or force you to do what THEY think you should do: the purveyors of peace advocate violence.

Empy words from an empty-headed man.

Just sickening.

Anyone who cares: Biden's contact info.

Stop reading this and go to Wizbang and see Lieberman's speech

This is the best speech denouncing the Democrats I've seen yet.
Go Senator Lieberman! Join the GOP! Fire Reid! You know you want to! Heck, you can't be any more liberal than Chafee or Snowe.

Don't you DARE question their patriotism!

Can't say it any better. Thinking of running for office just so I can yell at them EVERY DAY!

It Depends What the Meaning of "Support" Is
By David Limbaugh

(Some choice cuts. Go read the rest.)
Early on in the Iraq war I watched in disbelief as Democrats, one by one, then group by group, with malice aforethought, fraudulently accused President Bush of something they knew to be false.....
....they accused our commander in chief of lying us into war -- thus savaging his reputation and that of the United States before the entire world ......
...Democrats branded Bush as a unilateralist, flagrantly ignoring that he had desperately tried to bring as many nations as he could into the coalition and did succeed in convincing a significant number.
.....On into the war, Democrats couldn't bad mouth our progress often and loudly enough. For example, they proclaimed, quite gleefully, that the Iraqi people did not greet us as liberators, but occupiers.....
Though Democrats have always maintained, counter-logically, that they supported the troops even while they were busy Sheehanizing the war, they couldn't help but reveal their true colors on many occasions.....
Despite these precedent-breaking acts of disloyalty, the Democrats weren't finished outdoing themselves. Nancy Pelosi proved that when she went to Syria......Surely, we thought, the very leader of the entire House of Representatives wouldn't go that far and contradict and undermine, so overtly, the official foreign policy of the United States. We were wrong.
.....Just when we thought they couldn't stoop lower, we witnessed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest disgrace, telling the world, including our troops, that we have lost the war in Iraq.
It's hard to tell anymore whether the Democrats' deplorable actions are motivated more by their psychological predisposition against recognizing evil in the world (except among American political conservatives), or their raw quest for power. But perhaps Sen. Reid's recent statement to reporters sheds some light on the question.

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," said Reid. "Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

Enough said.

I say it again!
REID MUST GO!

Daybydaycartoon - a truly relevent comic

If you haven't seen Chris Muir's work, please visit his site.

Yesterday's strip is perfect for today's topic. Always fresh and always original. And ALWAYS FUNNY.

Btw, Chris Muir toured Iraq and visited outside the Green Zone. Has Surrender Harry?

Surrender Harry is in a state of denial, Corporal responds to Harry's plan

From DAVID ESPO AP correspondent on Drudgereport:
"Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday. "

Let's see, if pull out withing in six months, which actually is very swift, how are we supposed to conduct the following operations below.

Reid said the legislation "immediately transitions the U.S. military away from policing a civil war." He said that troops that remain in Iraq after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."


If we are: a) leaving, we will be doing nothing but, leaving. b) how do you train Iraqi units without leading them in combat, c) we always protect US forces, but that is never our mission, d) ( I love this one) I thought we were conducting counter terror ops, oh, wait, doesn't that entail combat ops. Hmmmm, maybe he's just trying to CYA and not actually state what he wants, ie. total withdrawal and surrender.


Under an agreement by Democratic leaders, the final bill could trigger the withdrawal of U.S. troops as early as July 1....


Of course, warfare ALWAYS runs according to plan and schedule....wait, isn't that the Dem complaint... that its not?


Reid said Bush was in "a state of denial" over the war, and likened him to another commander in chief four decades ago. "I remember when President Johnson, trying to save his political legacy, initiated the first of many surges into Vietnam in 1965," he said.


Wasn't it a Democratic admin and congress that did that? NOW he's feeling guilty. Hey Harry, even John Kerry knows that the Vietnam war is over. And the peaceniks lost that for us too.


Reid said that in addition to the timetable, the legislation will establish standards for the Iraqi government to meet in terms of "making progress on security, political reconciliation and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much."


Talk about denial. Who the hell is our congress to talk about establishing standard for the Iraqi government. Democrats can't even govern NEW ORLEANS AND WASHINGTON DC. How arrogant can you get?


Reid also challenged Bush to present an alternative if, as expected, he vetoes the Democratic legislation.


He HAS PRESENTED AN ALTERNATIVE. VICTORY. You just won't accept it.


"But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief—and this is his war," Reid said.


Actually its OUR war. Iraq is a CAMPAIGN in this war. YOU authorized it. And since you so kindly acknowledge that the President is CinC, then STOP TRYING TO DO HIS JOB!


And here's a link to an email from the front about this idiot, also linked on Drudgereport.



From PatDollard.com:
This Email To Me, Harry, And America, Direct From A Grunt On The Front Lines Of Ramadi, Is Just Hours Old.





Corporal Tyler Rock, 1/6 Charlie Company, on the left, at my old home, Camp Hurricane Point, Ramadi.

A view from OP Horea, “Most Dangerous Spot On Earth”, Downtown Ramadi. I no shit watched several terrorists die, on several different days, on this small strip of asphalt. We also took many IED strikes on it. This photo is from Corporal Rock.

Today, from Corporal Tyler Rock in an outpost in downtown Ramadi. His first sentence is in response to an email from me:

“yeah i know how you feel. its going to be very weird leaving this place and going back to america. weve been here for almost an entire year and have lived in the center of it the whole time. its crazy that when we got here it was so hectic and now its calmed down so much. so it was awesome to be able to see that turn out.
yeah news worth reporting…. well ramadi was once dubbed by everyone as the worst city in the world. but we have done such a great job here that all the families in the area have worked with us on driving out the insurgency and that we work directly with the IA and the IP’s. the city has been cleaned up so well that the IP’s do most of the patrols now and we go out with them to hand out candy and toys to the children. you can tell that the people want us here to protect them from the thugs and gangs (insurgents). granted they would rather have peace and quit but they know that if we arent here they will be thrown around by the insurgents,....yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or at least the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.


Sounds like Harry should be part of Code Pink with this kind of "support".

Harry Reid must go. NOW!

The excellent blog, NeverYetMelted, linked to a fine editorial by Mark Levin at National Review(mandatory reading for all conservatives) concerning the highest ranking moonbat in the Senate, Harry Reid.

An excerpt:
...Harry Reid, who by word and action is actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.

For those who are so pre-occupied with Gonzales that they may not have heard it, this is what Reid said yesterday: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

So, Reid announces to our brave volunteers that their country is sending them to a lost war. And he announces to our enemy that victory is within their reach — just keep up the killing a little longer. During my radio show last night, I received a call from a Gold Star father. He was outraged by Reid’s comment. He has called before and has become a good friend. But I’ve never heard him as angry and frustrated as he was last night.

Rather than join the chorus demanding Gonzales's resignation, let me be the first to demand Reid's resignation.
And let's see how many pundits, conservative and otherwise, will join me.

REID MUST GO

Press release from Senator Feingold, Waves the white flag

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ
April 2, 2007
Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy (surrender)our troops from Iraq.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.


There is just so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Well, lets start at the beginning. In a nutshell, everything hinges on "subsection (d)."

(1) targeted, limited ops vs Al Qaeda: Hhhmmm. If you are attacking A Q and others, how does one differentiate between violent domestic insurgents and AQ until after the battle? And since all of the insurgents are AQ allies, doesn't this contradict itself? And why should ops vs AQ be limited? I could go on for pages....
(2) provide security for US personnell and infrastructure: Isn't that what we do now? And if the bad guys attack but are not AQ insurgents, do we fight back?
(3) train and equip Iraqi sec forces: This contradicts (a) since this puts our forces in combat against non AQ personell. The only way to do this is to lead Iraqi troops in combat.

Senators Reid and Fiengold are idiots. I would question their patriotism but, with this, I don't have to question anything. These shortsighted, greedy, pieces of you know what are playing politics with the lives of my fellow service members just so they can make Bush look bad. Sure, the campaign has been handled badly. But they would rather surrender in the face of the enemy than support our President to win this war. This is the key campaign in the War on Terror. If they do this, no enemy will fear us; no ally will trust us.

Contact your representative now to derail this. Any Congressional member that supports this should be defeated, if not brought up for recall.

Ryskind sketchbook, my new favorite editorial cartoonist

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words.