Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/15/2007 2:25:13 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

A "slow bleed" for our troops? Posted by leo Blogs for Bush How do you sabotage a war effort for political gain, but keep your hands clean at the same time? Ask Jack Murtha. <<< Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options. Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself. >>> You see, this way they can bleed our troops and have the conditions under which they fight deteriorate gradually, with no one being the wiser. And then blame it on Bush. I don't want to hear one more word how the dems "support" our troops. Not. One. More. Word. I don't care what our lefty "friends" say. As a parent of a soldier in harm's way, the only words that come to mind in describing Murtha et al. is that they are traitorous blood-sucking bastards. I would think that hell has a special place for them (h/t And Rightly So; also see My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Matt and Jonathan have more on this over at GOP Bloggers. blogsforbush.com politico.com politico.com andrightlyso.com bamapachyderm.com gopbloggers.org gopbloggers.org

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/16/2007 12:22:48 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

treachery: an act of perfidy - violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence perfidy: the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal sedition: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority **** The Cat's Out of the Bag Posted by: Dean Barnett TownHall Blog This story deserves more attention than it’s gotten, so I’m going to give it some. The eagle-eyed NZ Bear while running the show at the Victory Caucus noticed a strange little blurb on the website of MoveCongress.org. MoveCongress.org, for those of you fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with the group, boasts on its masthead that it wants to “Move Congress to End the War in Iraq.” This morning, the group was scheduled to be blessed with an exclusive briefing from Jack Murtha on how…well, I’ll let you see how MoveCongress.org described Murtha’s agenda: Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy. There you have it, plain as day. While the rocket scientists at MoveCongress.org have subsequently sanitized the release, there’s no putting this cat back into the bag. This is what Murtha and his cohort are up to. And, to keep this post an angry bi-partisan one, let it be acknowledged that these are the people that some Republicans are eager to ride shotgun with in a pathetic and amoral quest to keep their precious jobs. Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com townhall.com victorycaucus.com mailto:Soxblog@aol.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/16/2007 12:26:43 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Excerpt Of The Day: John Boehner Slams John Murtha's Underhanded Attempt To Block The Surge John Hawkins Right Wing News <<< "Murtha's proposed legislation drew a heated response from the House's top Republican, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, who said the bill would "cut off funding for troops in harm's way by making sure the reinforcements they need to complete their mission in Iraq never arrive." "While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements, and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said in a statement. "The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face the enemy without our full support," Boehner added." -- John Boehner >>> That's what I like to see; a Republican who isn't cutting Murtha, Pelosi, or the rest of them an inch of slack for trying to undercut the troops in Iraq for politics sake. rightwingnews.com foxnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/17/2007 5:19:06 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I think the public will recognize that the real meaning of the resolution is that the Democrats, as a party, have committed themselves to a policy of failure and surrender. House Vote Splits on Party Lines Power Line Earlier today, the Republican leadership in the House sent out an email that said in part: <<< Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner are scheduled to hold an early afternoon press conference to "throw down the gauntlet," in the words of one House GOP leadership source, over the House Democrats' plan to "slow-bleed" the Iraq war to an end. The GOP leaders are aiming to capitalize on a perceived shift in momentum in their direction following Rep. John Murtha's detailed lay-out of his plan to choke off funding for the surge, but which is increasingly seen as a broader strategy meant to bring about a quick end to the war in Iraq. Asked about the number of GOP defections on that House vote, a House leadership source told the Bulletin, "The more our members and their members hear their true intentions, the less likely they are to vote for this non-binding resolution." The leadership source added, "Predictions of 50-60 defections will likely be proven false." >>> That was, indeed, what happened when the vote was taken a little while ago. The Victory Caucus has the details. The Democrats' anti-surge resolution passed 246-182, but only 17 Republicans voted for defeat. (Sadly, one of them was Minnesota's Jim Ramstad.) Two Democrats, Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi, voted with the Republicans. The press will no doubt try to spin this as a "bipartisan" resolution, but the truth is that the Democrats didn't get anything like the number of Republican supporters they were hoping for just a few days ago. I think the public will recognize that the real meaning of the resolution is that the Democrats, as a party, have committed themselves to a policy of failure and surrender. Time will tell whether that commitment will turn out to be a wise one. To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com victorycaucus.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/20/2007 1:17:46 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. The Democrats' 'Slow-Bleed' Strategy A disgraceful moment in Congress. by William Kristol The Weekly Standard 02/26/2007 Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party? President Bush is sending reinforcements to join our soldiers fighting in Iraq. Democrats are entitled to doubt this will work. They are entitled to conclude the whole cause is hopeless or unjust--and that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible or on some other more responsible timetable. They are entitled to move legislation in Congress to compel such a withdrawal, on a schedule and with provisions that seem to them appropriate. But surely they should not fecklessly try to weaken the U.S. position in Iraq, and America's standing in the world, by raising doubts as to our commitment in Iraq without advancing an alternative. That is precisely what they are doing with the nonbinding resolution condemning the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq. The fact that some Republicans have embraced this resolution does not excuse the Democratic party for its virtually monolithic support of it. The GOP has its share of fools and weaklings. But it is the Democratic party that now seems willing to commit itself, en masse, to a foreign policy of foolishness and weakness. For the nonbinding resolution passed by the House Friday is merely the first round. What comes next are legislative restrictions and budgetary limitations designed to cripple our effort in Iraq. As Politico.com reported Thursday: <<< Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. . . . The House strategy is being crafted quietly. . . . [Rep. Jack] Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels of adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet. . . . Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha. >>> So the nonbinding resolution is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy. The Murtha plan intends to block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed. Surely Democrats (and fellow-traveling Republicans) will turn back from this path while they still have time to save some of their honor. But the antiwar groups won't make it easy. John Bresnahan's Politico.com report continues: <<< Anti-war groups like [Tom] Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents . . . will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition. . . . Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war. . . . Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove." . . . "I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing." >>> No, the Democrats and the antiwar groups shouldn't "be seen" as "hand in glove." But they are. The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. These groups do not merely accept-reluctantly--American defeat in the Middle East. They seek to hasten it. Some seem to welcome it. The leaders of those groups believe their slow-bleed strategy is "kind of an ingenious thing." In truth, it's not really so "ingenious." But it is disgraceful. In our judgment, it will fail as a political strategem, it will fail to derail the president's policy--and we will ultimately prevail in Iraq. The slow-bleed strategy will, however, stain the reputation of its champions, and of the useful idiots in both parties who have gone along with it. --William Kristol weeklystandard.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/20/2007 2:59:13 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Congressional 'Indian Givers' By Cal Thomas Townhall.com Columnist Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Before political correctness, a person who gave someone a gift and later took it back was called an "Indian giver." This is what a majority in the House did last week when they "gave" their support to American forces fighting to stabilize Iraq and defeat our enemy and then promptly took it back. How else should one interpret this "nonbinding" resolution when part one said, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq," but part two negates part one: "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week sending a note withdrawing the sentiment. Last Saturday, Republicans managed to block a similar effort in the Senate, but by only four votes. Senate Democrats - and a few like-minded Republicans - vowed to try again. Once, most members of Congress supported the president's prosecution of the war. That was when his approval numbers were sky-high. Now that those numbers have fallen, so has congressional support. Most Democrats claim, falsely, that the November election was a referendum on the war. If the president's policy succeeds, though, two things will happen. First, some members who opposed him will claim they were behind the troop surge all along. Second, most Democrats will assert that success is actually failure because they can't afford politically to admit they were wrong. Do the troops feel supported by this House resolution? There are no opinion polls of military and civilian workers in Iraq, but two comments have come to my attention. One is a letter to the editor of The Washington Times from John McFarlane, a military trainer for Northrop-Grumman Technical Services in Elizabethtown, Ky. McFarlane writes that he has just returned from Iraq "after coming out of retirement to go there Š I can tell you that the greatest fear of the young service members over there is that the American public will fail to pursue total victory and will leave early, thereby wasting their battle buddies' life and blood. They feel pain every time somebody pays lip service to his or her conscience with the line: ŒI support the troops, but not the policy.' (They) know they are the policy and that you should feel shame if you as an American would commit them to anything less than total victory." The second letter is from Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, about whom I wrote in a column last week. Sgt. Dobson says he was in the chow hall in Mosul, watching CNN on the day of the House vote. He writes in an e-mail, "It made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to. The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick." So much for the assertion by some members of Congress that the House resolution, with the promise of more and binding ones to come, will have no affect on troop morale. How many other soldiers feel this way? How many others might be affected by these "no-confidence" votes? Of equal importance, how emboldened does the enemy feel as he sees the prophecy of Osama bin Laden coming true, that America doesn't have the stomach or staying power for a long war and will eventually give up if enough death and injury is inflicted upon American troops? If Congress wants to end this war, it should immediately vote to cutoff funds and receive whatever benefits, or consequences, that result. But too many who lack the spine to win also lack the spine to accept accountability for defeat. The only victory they appear committed to is the next election. Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might. townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/20/2007 3:05:43 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Democrats deny they have a plan for America's defeat in Iraq. They're correct. They have many such plans, and they're in competition with each other to see who can get it done the quickest. Elections matter. Racing for Defeat By David Limbaugh Townhall.com Columnist Tuesday, February 20, 2007 I hope those who dismissed the consequences of a Democratic takeover in Congress last November are beginning to see the error of their ways. With each passing day the Democratic leadership is becoming more extreme and urgent in undermining America's cause in Iraq. President Bush's 21,000-troop surge is well underway, and its accompanying strategy to secure Baghdad proceeds apace. Now, more than ever, our troops need our moral and spiritual support. Now, more than ever, Democrats -- and a disturbing number of Republicans -- are withdrawing it. Their actions are unconscionable. Two weeks ago, we saw their failed resolution denouncing the build-up of American troops in Iraq. Over the weekend, they tried again, unsuccessfully. On Friday, the House passed such a resolution by a comfortable vote of 246-182. But when Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking the resolution in the Senate, Democrats threw a tantrum, saying Republicans were stifling debate. Why is it so hard for these people to tell the truth? Republicans didn't shut down debate. They did the opposite. They refused to allow cloture on the resolution because Democrats refused to allow consideration of other proposals. It is their way or the highway. Republicans were quite willing to allow a vote on the Democrats' resolution if Democrats would have permitted a vote on the Republican's resolution pledging not to de-fund the troops in Iraq. But Democrats refused because the GOP resolution would have compelled Democrats to take a more meaningful stand and prevented them from having it both ways on the issue. So far, Democrats have positioned themselves as winners if the surge doesn't work, but protected themselves if it does by stopping short of cutting off funds. But a vote on the GOP resolution would have forced their hand: getting them on the record on the funding issue. If they voted for the resolution, they would infuriate the base. If they voted against it, it would be much harder for them to pretend they support the troops. That's why it was projected to draw the grudging support of some 75 Democrats. They had to block a vote on it. Voting for a resolution pledging not to withdraw funding would also show the abject meaninglessness of their resolution opposing the surge. There is no greater dagger to the heart of self-important politicians than to be exposed as insignificant. Unfortunately for us, these politicians are significant, and so are their disgraceful actions. Despite their semantic gyrations, they are undermining the troops and America's war effort. You don't support the troops by sabotaging their mission and strategy -- a strategy designed by the general in charge no less, whose appointment as commander of the coalition forces in Iraq they just unanimously approved. You don't support the troops by continually giving verbal comfort to the enemy. You don't support the troops by lobbying for their and America's defeat. If you are still unconvinced these antiwar politicians are damaging the war effort by their words alone, just wait. In their mounting frustration, they may soon go beyond mere words. Congressman Murtha has threatened to push a shameful series of "slow-bleed" measures to accomplish indirectly what he can't achieve directly: our immediate withdrawal. Senate Democrats said they would pursue means other than nonbinding resolutions to change Iraq policy. Sen. Chuck Schumer said that Democrats would be relentless in their campaign to end the Iraq war. "There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment Just like in the days of Vietnam, the pressure will mount and the vast majority of our troops will have to be taken out of harm's way." Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton, recognizing the futility of her latest effort to appease the foaming base because she refused an outright apology for her Iraq war vote, threw it a slab of red meat this time, calling for a 90-day deadline to begin a troop withdrawal. Hillary also threatened to put some teeth in the proposal, saying if the "redeployment" doesn't start in 90 days, Congress should "revoke authorization for this war." The world's smartest women watched Sen. Obama being heckled for suggesting the less drastic, though no less arbitrary withdrawal deadline of March 2008. She was not about to miss a chance to leapfrog over the hapless neophyte to the farthest reaches of the left lane. Democrats deny they have a plan for America's defeat in Iraq. They're correct. They have many such plans, and they're in competition with each other to see who can get it done the quickest. Elections matter. David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party. townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/20/2007 3:40:41 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Excerpt Of The Day: Ralph Peters On The Surge John Hawkins Right Wing News The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery... ..It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance. If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you? ...As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops." -- Ralph Peters http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/excerpt_of_the_day_ralph_peter.php nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/20/2007 4:13:16 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Democrats' Dilemma Power Line Investors Business Daily has a hard-hitting editorial denouncing the Congressional Democrats and their "slow bleed" strategy. It begins: <<< The party of John Murtha shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Congress the terrorists wanted is doing their bidding. >>> And that's not the hard-hitting part! More important, IBD has a poll that highlights the danger the Democrats face: The Democrats evidently believe that November's election was a mandate for them to lose in Iraq, but that's not how most Americans see it. In the end, how much this matters probably depends on events on the ground. If things go from pretty bad to worse in Iraq, the Democrats may not pay a price for their defeatism. (Of course, the "slow bleed" strategy is designed to ensure that that happens.) On the other hand, if the "surge" continues to produce results, and the voters' optimism grows, the Democrats could find themselves dangerously at odds with the public's mood. Via Michelle Malkin. michellemalkin.com To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com investors.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/21/2007 12:48:37 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Democrats Oppose An American Victory In Iraq John Hawkins Right Wing News Initially, the Democrats were just pushing the non-binding resolution opposing the surge and were holding off on cutting funds for the war. But now, they're escalating in the House and John Murtha and Company are actually going to try to block the surge. Why? Because it's working. Violence is dropping sharply, Al-Qaeda is fleeing Baghdad, Al-Sadr ran for Iran, the tribes in Anbar are cooperating with us, and the Iraqi military is stepping up to the plate. Because the Democrats habitually put their own political prospects above what's good for the country and the troops, they're deliberately trying to sabotage the war. Let me be even more blunt: the Democrats want America to lose the war in Iraq because they believe it will help them politically in 2008. It's dishonorable, it's disgraceful, and it's bad for America -- but, it's also the policy of the Democratic Party, with the exception of a handful of honorable men like Joe Lieberman. I've been saying for quite a while that defending America is now a partisan issue and the shameful way that the Democrats are acting in Congress has proved me right. rightwingnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/21/2007 4:42:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

War Power Game The coming constiutional crisis. By Rich Lowry National Review Online While other House Democrats were pretending that their nonbinding resolution against the Iraq troop surge was of great import, antiwar champion Rep. John Murtha spoke the truth. It is not “the real vote,” he said in a webcast for the left-wing MoveCongress.org. That comes with Murtha’s imminent attempt to hamstring President Bush’s conduct of the war that may well spark a constitutional crisis. There is a straightforward way for Congress to end a war: Cut off its entire funding. Congress has the power of the purse, the most important lever of legislative influence in the Anglo-American tradition. But House Democrats don’t want to wield this power because they’re afraid it will expose them to charges of defunding the troops. So they are resorting to an unconstitutional expedient instead. Murtha wants to attach conditions on the impending supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. He would require that troops have a year at home before redeploying, that they train with their own equipment before deploying and so on. Because the too-small U.S. military is under enormous strain, these conditions would be impossible to meet while still doubling the number of U.S. combat troops in Baghdad. Murtha repeatedly says in the webcast that his proposals are meant to “protect” the troops. But he is frank about the not-so-ulterior motive of keeping more troops from heading to Iraq, explaining that “they won’t be able to do the work.” Because his provisions can be sold as guaranteeing the readiness and quality-of-life of the troops, Murtha believes that they “will be very hard to find fault with.” Only if one ignores our constitutional scheme. The president, not Congress, is the commander in chief. Congress was never meant to, nor is it suited to, direct tactical military decisions, as Murtha seeks to do with his restrictions. Arguably, his maneuver will be the most blatant congressional intrusion on the president’s war-making powers in the nation’s history. Congress choked off the Vietnam War in the 1970s, but only after U.S. ground troops were mostly already out of the country and chiefly as a matter of cutting off aid to South Vietnam. Just as disturbing is Murtha’s cynical reliance on failure in Iraq as a political strategy. The plan aptly has been described by Politico.com as a “slow-bleed” antiwar strategy. The surge is the best chance of turning the war around. By hampering it, Democrats will ensure that the war continues to fail, and thus that domestic political support for it plummets to the point where Democrats feel safe in defunding it. The subconscious logic of their position on the war has thus taken a subtle turn. It used to be that the war had to end because it was a failure; now it must fail so that it can end. Democrats don’t see this distinction, since they simply believe the war is irretrievably lost. But they still pay laughably unserious lip service to the notion of success. Murtha says there’s no military solution in Iraq, that we can win in Iraq only through the political process — as if it has no effect on the political process whether Shia militias are murdering Sunnis unchecked or laying low to avoid the surge. In a howler, he maintains that if we leave, “al Qaeda’s going to disappear.” Maybe if we spread pixie dust and close our eyes? President Bush will have no choice but to reject the Murtha restrictions should they reach his desk. But a veto is problematic. As Murtha points out, a veto means that Bush doesn’t get the continued funding for the war. He might have to sign the bill, take the funding and ignore the restrictions as an unconstitutional trespass on his powers. In that event, a cry to impeach him will go up from the increasingly powerful antiwar Left. The result of the Democrats’ clever gambit could be a constitutional implosion from which no one — certainly not the country — will emerge a winner. © 2007 by King Features Syndicate article.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/22/2007 1:13:01 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

'BANANAS' JACK MURTHA POLL WORTHY OF WOODY ALLEN NEW YORK POST Opinion By ZEV CHAFETS February 21, 2007 LISTENING to Rep. John Murtha's arguments against the American troop surge in Iraq reminds me of a scene in "Bananas." Facing an insurgency, the Latin American dictator in that Woody Allen classic reaches out for American aid. But he mistakenly calls in not the CIA, but the UJA - the United Jewish Appeal. Black-hatted rabbis, holding little charity boxes, are soon wandering through the chaotic battle zone. Like the dictator, Murtha is confused about what does and doesn't work during a sectarian bloodbath. "The latest polls show that 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shia Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq," Murtha told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month. "In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces." The congressman has repeated these statistics again and again in his effort to convince his colleagues to oppose the surge. Look at how many Sunnis want U.S. forces out, how many Shiites approve of killing Americans, how many Iraqis disapprove of their own leaders . . I've got the numbers right here, scientific as a Con Ed meter reading and twice as authoritative. This is the sheerest nonsense. In today's (or yesterday's) Iraq, independent pollsters have as much chance of gathering genuine data as rabbis have of collecting donations from Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites. The problem isn't unique to Iraq. It holds for opinion surveys in any society ruled by kinship, secrecy and fear of outsiders - in other words, almost every country in the Middle East. In these places, it is a cardinal principle, founded in the folk wisdom of self-preservation, that you don't share honest opinions on controversial matters with inquisitive strangers. In Iraq, where Saddam Hussein's regime habituated citizens to speak in whispers even among their own families, the problem is especially acute. For these reasons, most U.S. polling organizations don't even try to work in Iraq. The survey Murtha quotes was published last September by the Center on Policy Attitudes, a small think tank affiliated with the University of Maryland, "partnered" by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center. Those are prestigious names - but neither Brookings nor the University of Maryland actually did any polling. They contracted the job out to a U.S. firm, D3 Systems - which subcontracted it to KA Research. Matt Warshaw, a D3 spokesman, says KA Research is owned by Iraqis and Turks, but isn't prepared to name them. KA Research's Web site says it uses face-to-face interviews, computer-assisted phone queries, Web and postal interviews, and focus-group discussions to come up with its statistics. That claim invites skepticism. Do strangers really go around freely in Baghdad asking for political opinions? Conduct phone surveys among people with no phones, ask the folks in Anbar Province to return candid questionnaires via a non-existent postal service, go through the neighborhoods of Najaf requesting a few minutes with the lady of the house? Warshaw claims they do; maybe so. But KA Research, that mystery subcontractor, also does its own quality control - with no real outside checks on its data. I was unable to find (and Washaw didn't know of) any contemporaneous American polls with which to compare results. If this company has really been able to raise a nationwide army of courageous, reliable, honest and neutral pollsters, it should be put in charge of the Iraqi security forces. I don't know how many Iraqis really want the United States out of their country. Neither does Jack Murtha. His guess is as good as mine, but with six-month-old statistics gathered under "Bananas" conditions, that's all it is - a guess. And that guess doesn't belong in a serious debate over national-security policy. Some arguments are too transparently flimsy even for a congressman. Zev Chafets' latest book is "A Match Made in Heaven." nypost.com bananas_jack_opedcolumnists_zev_chafets.htm

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/22/2007 5:34:26 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35834

Dick Cheney Hammers The Democrats For Playing Into Al-Qaeda's Hands John Hawkins Right Wing News "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy. The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit." -- Dick Cheney Predictably, Nancy Pelosi is upset that Dick Cheney is accurately describing what the Democrats want to do: <<< "I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him. "You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said. >>> What's the matter Nancy? Does the truth hurt? After all, the Democrats are, "acting against the national security of our country," and validating, "the al-Qaida strategy." And it's great to see someone in the White House finally saying so, instead of giving the Democrats a pass for trying to sabotage the war in Iraq for political gain. Hopefully, Bush will be willing to back Cheney up on this rather than reaching out yet again to the very people who have been willing to do anything and everything to destroy him since the day he came into office. rightwingnews.com apnews.myway.com

To: Sully- who wrote (25580)	2/26/2007 4:27:11 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

FOR SHAME, CHUCK NEW YORK POST Editorial February 25, 2007 Capitol Hill Democrats have finally adopted a military strategy: They've declared a war of attrition against President Bush's policy in Iraq. The non-binding resolutions denouncing the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar Province were the first feint. Now Democrats are launching phase two: an attempt to "de-certify" the war by effectively nullifying the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Saddam Hussein. Here's how New York's own Sen. Chuck Schumer outlined the Dems' line of attack: <<< "There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," he said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home." >>> So much for the Democrats' insistence that they don't favor a wholesale cut-and-run from America's commitment in Iraq. Frankly, we'd expect such sentiments from the Democrats running for president, who are falling over each other in a desperate bid to mollify the party's increasingly dominant far-left wing. But Chuck Schumer knows better. Or at least he used to - before he was tapped for a top leadership position, and publicly abandoned common sense in favor of toeing the party line of appeasement and surrender. After all, it was little more than two years ago that Schumer, campaigning for re-election, pronounced himself "rather hawkish" on the War on Terror and openly boasted that he'd "voted with the president for authorization to go into Iraq." Indeed, he added then, "My greatest brief against the Bush administration is not what they're doing overseas." And he issued a solemn vow that "I'm never going to leave our soldiers high and dry." That was then. Now he's invoking the Democratic "glory days" - America's defeat in Vietnam - as the rallying cry for his party's anti-war efforts. Yet even now, with their intentions wholly apparent, the majority Democrats won't treat the issue honestly and schedule an up-or-down vote on support for the war. Instead, they clumsily mask their plans by offering meaningless resolutions that profess to "support the troops" even while deploring their mission. As Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell noted: "Republicans are fighting for the right of the American people to know where we stand. If you support this war, say so. If you don't, say so. But you cannot say you are registering a vote in favor of our troops unless you pledge to support them with the funds they will need to carry out their mission." Which is why the Democrats refused to allow either the House or the Senate to vote on a GOP resolution that supports continued funding for the troops, even while expressing concern over the Baghdad troop surge. That, McConnell rightly noted, is chicanery - pure and simple. "The only vote that really matters is a vote on whether to fund the troops," he said. But that's precisely the vote the Democratic leadership is afraid of - because it would surely win an overwhelming majority, and thus bolster the president. So instead, they've chosen a "slow bleed" - trying to tie the president's hands while simultaneously working to undercut his political support. It's a shameful strategy - and doubly so when Chuck Schumer plays a leading role, sacrificing his principles in the process. It's time for the Democrats to show some real courage and accept Mitch McConnell's challenge: If they really oppose this war, they need to oppose it. Defund the troops and the rebuilding effort. Bring everyone home - lock, stock and gun-barrel. Fat chance. nypost.com