Ron Paul vs. General Petreus

Broken Government

What we have is a real failure to communicate

Bush prepares new Iraq escalation as congressional Democrats blather on

By Patrick Martin

As Senate Democratic leaders moved Tuesday to stage an all-night session devoted to votes on supposedly “anti-war” measures that have no chance of passage, the Bush administration has dropped a series of hints that it plans to intensify rather than reduce the violence in Iraq.

Bush called in a hand-picked group of right-wing columnists and commentators to the White House Friday, telling them to put no stock in press reports that the White House was contemplating a change in policy on the war. According to a report in National Review Online by Kate O’Beirne and Rich Lowry, two of those invited, “Forget the leaks and the speculation, President George W. Bush is not looking for a way out of the surge and the Iraq war.”

“A confident and determined president made it clear that he is going to see the surge through, and will rely on General David Petraeus’s advice on how to proceed come September, regardless of the political climate in Washington,” they wrote.

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, another invited guest, suggested in his column July 17 that further escalation of the surge might be in order: “Bush was assertive,” he wrote, “he is unshakably committed to stabilizing Iraq. If Gen. David Petraeus comes back and says he needs more troops and more time, Bush will scrounge up the troops.”

This suggestion was reinforced by the comments of Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a visit to Baghdad Monday. Pace declared that the surge had produced a “sea change” in security conditions in Iraq. According to an Associated Press report, “Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the US military is continuing various options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his ‘surge’ strategy needs a further boost.”

Pace told reporters that the military “must be prepared for whatever it’s going to look like two months from now. That way, if we need to plus up or come down” in troop numbers, the necessary operational plans will be in place.

These comments give the lie to claims by congressional Democratic leaders that they are waging an all-out battle that is pushing the Republican Party and the Bush administration toward withdrawal from Iraq.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution late Friday, by a near-party-line vote of 223 to 205, for a measure to require US combat troops to begin coming home within 120 days of passage of the legislation, with most to be removed by April 1, 2008. The bill permits tens of thousands of US troops to remain in occupation of the country, so long as their mission is defined as to combat terrorism, train Iraqi soldiers and defend US installations.

All members of the “Out of Iraq” caucus, numbering about 80 Democrats, voted for the bill, which would legitimize the open-ended US occupation of Iraq, with the exception of congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Four Republicans voted for the bill, while nine conservative Democrats voted against it.

Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have already foresworn the only effective legislative measure against the war—a cutoff of funding—in favor of resolutions that either will be vetoed without possibility of an override, like the House measure, or that will not even receive a vote, as in the Senate, where most Republicans are committed to filibuster any restriction on the Bush administration’s war policy.

Despite claims by Harry Reid that he was stepping up the pressure for a withdrawal of US forces in Iraq, the Tuesday all-nighter is merely a protest stunt that the Democrats hope will make them appear to oppose the war, while allowing the bloodbath to continue, and even escalate further.

Only three Senate Republicans have agreed to back the principal Democratic amendment to the defense appropriations bill, drafted by Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, which mirrors the bill passed by the House Friday. With at least one Democrat, “independent” Joseph Lieberman, committed to all-out support for the White House on the war, at least ten Republicans would have to defect to halt a filibuster and compel a vote.

Majority Leader Reid reiterated his intention to keep the legislative farce going as long as possible. “We’re going to continue working on this until we get a vote on this amendment,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that President Bush has proven, beyond any doubt, that he won’t listen to the Congress or the American people unless he’s forced to, and that’s what this amendment does.”

The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday on the Levin-Reed amendment, and perhaps later in the week on two others: a bipartisan measure, drafted by Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado and Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations as official policy; and the proposal offered by two pillars of the Republican Senate establishment, John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, which would require Bush to carry out advance planning for a troop withdrawal, but would not mandate the removal of a single soldier.

As the charade continues, there has been increasing commentary in the media about the congressional Democratic leadership being in danger of alienating public opinion, which is far more hostile to the continuation of the war than anyone in the Senate.

A commentary in Time magazine, headlined, “The Iraq Debate That Wasn’t,” began by noting that most Americans were being given the impression there is a congressional debate over the war, but in reality, both sides support a continuing long-term US military occupation of Iraq. The magazine observed:

“Even if the Democrats’ position is not in fact that far from where the President claims to be headed, both sides are portraying the gap between them as unbridgeable. Which, in turn, leaves the impression that the debate is between those who want to escalate the war and those who want to withdraw US forces entirely... If you’re looking for someone who will lead a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, you’ll have to go to the extreme left or right of the parties. Nobody in the mainstream is looking to get out soon.”

There are, of course, intense and bitter conflicts over Iraq policy, between the Democrats and Republicans and within both parties. These conflicts revolve around two issues: what methods should be employed to salvage what can be saved from the wreckage of the Bush administration’s reckless policy; and who will pay the political price for the debacle. But no significant section of the US political establishment, in either party, supports an abandonment of the effort to dominate the oil fields of the Middle East and gain a decisive strategic advantage over rival capitalist powers like China, Russia and the European Union.

Original article posted here.

Cutting off the Dick

Panel moves to cut off funds to Cheney

By Andrew Taylor

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to cut off funding for Vice President Dick Cheney's office in a continuing battle over whether he must comply with national security disclosure rules.

A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president's budget until Cheney's office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.

At issue is a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how much material they classify and declassify. That information is to be provided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives.

Cheney's office, with backing from the White House, argues that the offices of the president and vice president are exempt from the order because they are not executive branch "agencies."

The funding cut came as the appropriations panel approved 5-4 along party lines a measure funding White House operations, the Treasury Department and many smaller agencies.

Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Cheney's office was flouting requirements that it comply with the reporting requirements on classified information.

"Neither Mr. Cheney or his staff is above the law or the Constitution," Durbin said. "For the vice president to believe that he has no responsibility to meet this requirement of the law is a dereliction of duty."

The tempest originally attracted widespread media attention after Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged that Cheney's office's had originally argued to the Archives that it did not have to comply with the order because it was not "an entity within the executive branch."

The vice president is also the president of the Senate, able to vote to break ties and preside over the chamber, though he is not eligible to sponsor legislation or participate in debates.

Cheney's office, Waxman said, also blocked the archives from doing an onsite inspection of his office to make sure classified information was being properly protected.

Republicans on the Senate panel said Durbin was going overboard in using Congress' power of the purse to try to force Cheney to conform with the order.

Such a step, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would set a terrible precedent in relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, which have historically let each other set their own budgets.

"This is going to further erode any sort of working relationship back and forth," Brownback said. "This is a patently bad idea."

The House last month narrowly rejected a comparable attempt by Democrats to cut off funding for Cheney's office.

On Tuesday, two panel Democrats — moderates Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — registered discomfort with Durbin's move, though they backed him when Republicans forced a vote.

Brownback said the executive order does not apply to Cheney's office because it is not an agency. But Durbin insisted that Cheney's office is explicitly covered because the order applies to "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

Original article posted here.

Democratic Hypocrisy and Disgrace: Just Full of a Little Less Shit

The Pelosi-crats and the War

Caught like a deer in the headlights

by Justin Raimondo

The times, they sure are a changin.' Why, it seems like only yesterday – although it was December 16, 1998 – that Nancy Pelosi opined:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Today, however, she's singing a different tune: "There was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never."

When Bush launched the war, both the Senate and House adopted resolutions ostensibly to "support the troops," but in reality endorsing the war, the bombing, and the policies of the Bush administration. The Senate voted 99-to-nothing for a resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq."

The House version, co-authored by Nancy Pelosi and Tom Delay (what a tag-team!), passed 392-11, with 22 abstentions. It went much further than the Senate version in supporting Bush, not only claiming that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN resolutions, but also going so far as to offer "unequivocal support" for Bush's "firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq," which it described as "part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism." Eleven Democrats voted against the resolution, averring that they could support the troops without supporting this tripe. As American bombs were falling on Iraq, killing thousands, Pelosi declared,

"Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region. As our soldiers risk their own lives to secure the lives and liberty of others, we pledge to repay their courage by guaranteeing that we will spare no resource and no effort to make sure nothing stands between them and victory."

She is fulfilling that pledge today: the bill she is trying to strong-arm though the Democratic Congress, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act," gives the President more money to expand the military than he asked for. It also establishes benchmarks that would supposedly regulate the number of troops in Iraq and their mission, leading to a complete withdrawal by the summer of next year. The only problem is that these benchmarks can be unilaterally waived by the President, with Congress in only an advisory role.

The Pelosi bill, in short, is the most partisan, most dishonest piece of legislation possible, under the circumstances. With one hand it proffers a veritable cornucopia of goodies – benchmarks on "troop readiness," an end to extended deployment, "rest periods" between deployments, and, most delectable of all, a deadline of October 1, 2007, for the Iraqis to get their act together, or else we're out of there.

With the other hand, however, the Pelosi-crats hand the ball back to the Bush administration, ensuring that nothing will come of it but a campaign issue for the Democrats. It's all smoke-and-mirrors. News accounts insist the Pelosi bill requires a complete U.S. withdrawal, except it just isn't true: as currently written, the legislation provides for the stationing of considerable forces in Iraq provided they are (supposedly) going after al Qaeda, or other terrorist organizations with "global reach." We're just going to have to take this administration's word for it if – or, rather, when – the President makes short shrift of Pelosi's feeble benchmarks.

Listen to the language of the "antiwar" Pelosi-crats: they never say we ought to withdraw from Iraq – instead, they insist, we should "redeploy." Which means we'll bide our time, and wait for the opportunity to pounce once again on whatever practically defenseless Middle Eastern nation is targeted next.

At the beginning of this conflict, Pelosi promised: "I don't have any intention of second-guessing the strategy of the commander in chief and those who are waging this war." This from someone who now wants to micromanage the U.S. military campaign in Iraq – down to the number of troops, and how they're to be deployed.

I won't bore you, dear readers, with a long disquisition on Pelosi's many wobbles on the Iraq question: suffice to say it is dizzying. Anyone can change their mind: but usually they acknowledge the change. We have seen no such acknowledgement from the Speaker, and I wouldn't hold my breath: her arrogance is legendary. Now that the war she endorsed, and refused to "second-guess," is unpopular, the Speaker has decided she's against it – but not so much that she is willing to cut off the funding.

With the introduction of the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act," disguised as an "antiwar" measure, this is no longer merely Bush's war. By approving funds to continue the conflict, after having been voted into office largely on account of their ostensible opposition to it, Pelosi & Co. have made it their war, too. The party leadership's role as the "left" wing of the War Party is underscored by the Speaker's threats to punish those genuinely antiwar Democrats who oppose this bill.

The idea that the Democrats are any kind of "peace party" is belied by the latest action of the Speaker in regard to this bill, who excised a provision that would have required the President to come to Congress for permission to attack Iran. And, gee, what a coincidence, but that this was done right after the recent conference of the American-Israel Political Affairs Committee, where Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared:

"I know that… all of you who are concerned about the security and the future of the State of Israel understand the importance of strong American leadership addressing the Iranian threat, and I am sure you will not hamper or restrain that strong leadership unnecessarily."

He forgot to add: or else. Not that he had to: Nancy skeedaddled back to her office so fast that she must have broken the sound barrier – and the offending passage was cut from the bill.

Yes, the times, they are a changin' – but not in a good way. Nancy and the Democrats just gave Bush the green light to start bombing Tehran at Olmert's earliest convenience – so get ready for the Second Great Middle East War, brought to you by the leadership of both "major" parties.

Original article posted here.

Let's hope that money talks, and Bushshit walks

Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation

President Bush is widely expected to announce a plan next week to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 20,000. Congress may not cooperate.

In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. An excerpt:

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,” he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.” He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible” look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.”…

He says he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”

A memo from the Center for American Progress, released December 27, recommends “an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.”

Original article posted here.