Which Way Am I Growing?
-Galatians 6:7-10
If the Democrats meant what they said in 2006, Feinstein provides an excellent test case for their new sense of ethics. They should expel her from the Senate and have California hold a special election to replace her. If they do nothing, then they have exposed themselves as the party of self-enrichment at the expense of taxpayers.
Based on [GOP profligacy], the nation gave the Democrats the majority in both chambers of Congress. What did we get? No decrease in federal spending; the Democrats want to grow the government by 2.4% each year, which would mean adding close to $100 billion in spending each year. In order to do that, they want to increase taxes across the board, choking off economic growth and making people even more dependent on the government.
By 2011, the added tax burden on every taxpayer would be over $1100 dollars. Twenty-six million small businesses would have to pay almost $4,000 in extra taxes. More than five million Americans whose incomes are too low to pay taxes now would have to start paying in 2011, making the Democratic plan more regressive than what it seeks to replace.
Democrats and taxes, together again after twelve years in the wilderness. It sounds like a movie romance - and we're footing the bill for the production.
[Swamped today between work and family responsibilities. And just when blogging fodder is reaching critical mass again {sigh}. Fortunately....]
1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, He leads me beside quiet waters, 3 He restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, [a] I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
-Psalm 23
Tony Blair warned Iran yesterday that the dispute over the fifteen British servicemen seized in Gulf waters last week could move into a “different phase” if diplomacy failed to secure their release.
His words, immediately condemned by Iran as “provocative” [heh], came as the US Navy began its biggest show of force in the Gulf since the invasion of Iraq four years ago, with manoeuvres involving two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships and more than one hundred aircraft.
As tensions rose, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, had a robust telephone conversation with her Iranian counterpart demanding immediate consular access to the captured Britons.
In an interview on GMTV, Mr. Blair said: “I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.”
By this time next year, the once-vaunted Royal Navy will be about the size of the Belgian Navy, while its officers face a five-year moratorium on all promotions...
Since January, the Blair government has broadcast its intentions of gutting the Royal Navy's surface fleet. At the same time, it also announced its plans for withdrawing 2,500 British troops from Iraq. The result? First, the Royal Navy is finished as a credible military force. Second, the British Army's redeployment from Basra has been widely interpreted as abandonment of the Iraq mission, rather than as moving on to Afghanistan after a job well done, as Blair insists...
The mullahs in Tehran clearly see the new pacifist trend in Britain not as a hopeful sign of future accord, but as supine surrender. Just as clearly, they have singled out Britain as the latest weak link in the Coalition fighting in Iraq and in the War on Terror...
In places like Bosnia and the Persian Gulf, and in operations like Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, its help has been solid and genuine, as well as important in a symbolic sense. America always looks better when a couple of frigates flying the Royal Navy's White Ensignare side by side with those flying the Stars and Stripes. U.S. sailors also know that in a real fight, the men of the Royal Navy, which our navy men still call the "Senior Service," will never let them down...
Now those days are gone for good. Yet, if today's Britons thought that by shedding that historic responsibility they could buy themselves some peace of mind, the current hostage crisis has just proved them wrong...
Enemies like the mullahs and their terrorist allies recognize no time outs, no neutral ground. They see only strength and weakness, those nations they can manipulate and those they have to fear. Today they clearly feel they can pull the British lion's tail with impunity.
If the hostages are finally released unharmed, it will have a lot more to do with the presence of two American carrier groups off the Iranian coast than anything Blair is doing - and the British will have learned that what they really lost when they gave up their fleet and abandoned the fight in Iraq is their own self-respect.
With every passing week it becomes more likely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for president. This thought, alone, should provide the strongest possible motivation to the Bush Administration and the Washington Republicans to get their acts together so that the eventual Republican nominee for president doesn't start the general election campaign in too deep a hole.Fat chance. When has that bunch had its act together at any time in the past four years? Heck, the latter are too busy trying to run away from the former to even notice Mrs. Clinton moving in behind them with the length of telephone cord.
The polls that show half the country saying they won't vote for Hillary should be discounted. At the election, the choice will not be Hillary or not Hillary -- it will be Hillary or someone else. And that is what the campaign is about. ...
Moreover, Hillary's strengths are not yet as appreciated as they will be. Don't get me wrong, personally I find her and her candidacy detestable as the worst form of unprincipled, ruthless, nihilistic, mud-throwing demagogic politics. But for the Democratic Party electorate (and some Independents and soft Republicans) her apparent strengths will become more persuasive.
Currently she suffers by the media's focus on her lack of spontaneity, charm or pleasant voice - particularly when compared with Obama and, to some extent, Edwards. But charm is not the only path to the American voter. Richard Milhous Nixon won more national elections than any politician in our history (two vice presidents, three presidential nominations and two presidencies - three if you count the stolen 1960 election against Kennedy). He didn't have any charm - but he was smart, shrewd, highly political, hard working and ruthless. Sometimes the voters are looking for what they think is competence rather than a love affair.
What a bad week for Washington families and taxpayers.For Washington taxpayers and families, it's been a bad twenty-three years (i.e. the last time the Evergreen State had a Republican governor that wasn't toppled by a Donk coup de tat), the occasional GOP legislative majority not withstanding. And even those interludes haven't provided much relief. Which is most of why the Republican Party has become so moribund in this state.
[Former attorney-general] Gregoire and Democrats in both Olympia and Washington, D.C. showed once again that they’re still the party of three things: spending, spending and more spending. House Democrats blindly followed [Former attorney-general] Gregoire’s lead and proposed a budget that – surprise – adds billions in new spending. [Former attorney-general] Gregoire praised it as soon as it was released.
Assuming the Democrats pass a budget similar to the ones they have already proposed – and it’s virtually certain that they will – state government spending will have increased 33% since [Former attorney-general] Gregoire [overthrew legitimate Washington Governor Dino Rossi].
Let me say that again. A 33% increase in spending....
[Former attorney-general] Gregoire is busy spending billions on new programs and totally draining a record $2 billion surplus, but she and her fellow Democrats are ignoring the critical issues facing our state.
Her education proposals focus heavily on politically flashy new programs designed to aid her [Hugo Chavez-esque "]election["], while fundamental school needs remain overlooked.
[Former attorney-general] Gregoire is continuing to ignore the felon release crisis in her [junta] by refusing to build any new prisons – guaranteeing that law enforcement officials will continue facing the unacceptable choice of letting dangerous felons out early, or not arresting them in the first place.
And instead of improving Washington’s expensive and overbearing business climate, [Former attorney-general] Gregoire is laying the groundwork for lower business growth in the future.
State government has a record surplus this year, which provides an opportunity to start paying down billions of dollars in pension obligations and provide some much-needed tax relief, but instead [Former attorney-general] Gregoire is spending every penny and setting us up for more tax increases in the future....
Democrats, once again, are reminding us all of just how liberal and irresponsible their tax-and-spend politics really are.
- “Sure holding all that bullshit in your gut would make anybody sick..!”
- “You can only swallow so much............can you say karma.................”
- “The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his ass. Fuck him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!”
White House press secretary Tony Snow, who has become the face of the Bush presidency over the last year, has cancer again.
Snow's deputy, Dana M. Perino, broke into tears at an off-camera briefing this morning as she announced that the cancer has spread to his liver.
President Bush, in brief remarks to reporters later in the White House Rose Garden, asked Americans to pray for his ailing spokesman, who he said called him this morning from the hospital to pass on the information that his cancer had returned.
"His attitude is one that he is not going to let this whip him, and he's upbeat," Bush said. "My attitude is that we need to pray for him and for his family." He said his message to Snow is "stay strong; a lot of people love you and care for you and will pray for you. And we're hoping for all the best."
Bush added, "I'm looking forward to the day that he comes back to the White House and briefs the press corps on the decisions that I'm making and why I'm making them. In the meantime, I hope our fellow citizens offer a prayer to he and his family."
More than forty major international banks and financial institutions have either cut off or cut back business with the Iranian government or private sector as a result of a quiet campaign launched by the Treasury and State departments last September, according to Treasury and State officials.
The financial squeeze has seriously crimped Tehran's ability to finance petroleum industry projects and to pay for imports. It has also limited Iran's use of the international financial system to help fund allies and extremist militias in the Middle East, say U.S. officials and economists who track Iran.
The U.S. campaign, developed by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, emerged in part over U.S. frustration with the small incremental steps the U.N. Security Council was willing to take to contain the Islamic republic's nuclear program and support for extremism, U.S. officials say. The council voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Tehran, including a ban on Iranian arms sales and a freeze on assets of twenty-eight Iranian individuals and institutions.
The US has targeted the Revolutionary Guard with its attempts at isolating the Iranians. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has transformed the Guard into an economic powerhouse in Iran, a major defense and civilian contractor even outside of its arms trading. This has made the Guard very loyal to Ahmadinejad, and the sanctions aim to both drive a wedge between the Guard and the president and also to cripple their ability to prop up the current regime....
The Bush Administration has successfully conducted an indirect war on Iranian interests, and it is a progressive war. The effects of these efforts will be cumulative, and the Iranians have not much time left before their economy begins to completely collapse under the weight of them. Oil production accounts for 80% of their exports, and once those facilities start to fail, they will have nothing left with which to bargain - and it will take years to repair the damage. When they reach that stage, Iranians will find plenty of motivation to shake off the disastrous reign of the mullahcracy, and even the Revolutionary Guard will not find much motivation to protect them. [emphases added]
American forces in Iraq now hold some three hundred prisoners tied to Iran’s intelligence agencies, Pajamas Media learned from both diplomatic and military sources.
This is believed, by both sources, to be a record number of prisoners tied to Iran. Virtually all were captured in the past two months.
[Last] week’s seizure of fifteen British sailors by Iran in the contested waters of the Shattab al-Arab, the ship channel that divides Iraq and Iran, may have been payback for the capture of record number of Iranian operatives inside Iraq. “It may be a bargaining chip,” one diplomatic source said.
The intelligence community is still debating whether the unlawful detainment of British sailors was ordered by Iran’s government or was presented to it as a fait accompli by relatively low-level Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers.
The roughly three hundred prisoners held in Iraq—the number grows frequently—are either Iranian nationals or Shiites recruited from neighboring countries that are employed one of its almost two dozen intelligence or paramilitary services.
The record haul of Iran-linked prisoners may not be a sign of [an Iranian counter-"Surge"]. The Islamic Republic’s participation in the Iraq war, which includes funding, arming and training both Shiite and Sunni militias, has been known to be significant for some time.More likely, the large number of Iran-linked prisoners reflects a change in tactics following the arrival of Multinational Force Iraq commander Army General David H. Petraeus. Previously, Iranians and other foreigners could not be picked up without a provable connection to terrorism. Now, American and allied forces are encouraged to seize militants based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in insurgent attacks. This is consistent with Iraqi law.
There's an old saying: don't imitate a moose mating call if you don't want Bullwinkel's intimate companionship. Just ask Rocky.For reasons I can only ascribe to a sheer idiocy I pray I never contract, Senator Chuck Hagel (RINO-NE) appears never to have learned that lesson - until, one likes to hope, now.Let's review, shall we?
Last week, the Nebraska senator made headlines when he criticized the Administration’s Iraq policy saying, “The White House is completely disconnected from reality... It's like they're just making it up as they go along.” Hagel also warned that Iraq was on the verge of becoming another Vietnam.
But for the sobriety and cornbelt buzzsaw accent, you'd have sworn that was Uncle Teddy going off on another brandy bender. You'd also think that "maverick" wannabes would learn that you can't out-McCain McCain - who, as it happens, is still backing the Bush Administration on the war.
But the Left doesn't care which RINO turns heel - they'll still use his wayward words anyway:
While Hagel’s comments faded from media attention, MoveOn went into action. The same day as this week’s speech by President Bush on Iraq the MoveOn PAC began a new advertising campaign calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces. They took Hagel’s words and placed them alongside claims that President Bush, “is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11-implying that Iraq attacked us in 2001.”
On Wednesday, MoveOn sent out a fundraising letter to supporters asking for $500,000 dollars to “expand the advertising into the hometowns of Republican members of Congress who will have tough elections in 2006. That will help send a signal that Congress will pay a price at the ballot box because of the Iraq failures.” The letter explains that 84% of MoveOn’s 3.3 million registered members support a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.The ad itself is titled “Hagel” and reads in part: “It’s time to come home. We went in the wrong way, let’s come home the right way.”
Anybody who is surprised by moveon's opportunism, stand on your head.
Senator Hagel would be advised to refrain from this activity, though, since it might drain all the blood out of his brain:
Hagel’s office was not pleased when they received word of the new ad. Hagel claims MoveOn used his words out of context and asked for the ad to be taken down immediately. Hagel's official statement on the ad reads in part:
"This ad is dishonest. I have never supported immediate removal of American troops from Iraq. I have said that to withdraw from Iraq now would have catastrophic consequences that would ripple across a generation of Americans, Iraqis, and the entire Middle East. I have said I believe we can succeed in Iraq. MoveOn neglects to mention that in their ad.
"I have differences with the Administration over the execution of our war policy …War is deadly serious and the debate over our policy should match the seriousness of the situation. Americans are entitled to an honest public debate about our policy in Iraq. Cheap, misleading 30-second partisan political attack ads debase our debate."
In the statement addressed to MoveOn Hagel demands that the ad be pulled down.
As if. If I were running moveon I'd be laughing in Hagel's face at his rank foolishness. They didn't "take him out of context"; what other possible context could there be to calling the President delusional and invoking the Left's favorite anti-war parallel? Nor did they trick or trap him; indeed, Hagel has been going out of his way to sound as shrilly Bushophobic as anybody across the aisle. Nobody made a sucker out of him - he braided his own noose, stuck his own neck through it, and kicked the stool out from under himself. All moveon did is snap a pic or two and otherwise enjoy watching him swing.
If Hagel truly thinks moveon's ad is "dishonest," "cheap," and "misleading," perhaps he will revisit his own dishonest, cheap, misleading rhetoric that got his words and name prominently featured in spots that will be used against Republican congressional candidates next year.
Or maybe he's just sore because his perfidy got caught in the klieg lights of public scrutiny, necessitating more "dishonest, cheap, misleading" rhetoric to try and cover his worthless ass.If Nebraska's senior senator still harbors 2008 presidential ambitions, it would seem that it's not the President of the United States who's suffering delusions.
Some lawmakers who complain that President Bush is flouting Congress and the public with his Iraq policies are considering impeachment an option, a Republican senator said Sunday.
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.
"Any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed' — if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that," Hagel said on ABC's This Week. ...
In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who didn't believe he was accountable to anyone.
"You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment," Hagel told the magazine.
[Senate] Democrats are trying to make future tax cuts virtually impossible to pass. They've proposed a procedural change that would require 60-vote super-majority to post any tax cut. To put this into perspective, if a super-majority had been required when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they simply would never have happened. Which means the economic growth we experienced as a result of Bush's tax cuts never would have happened and we'd probably be in the middle of a Depression.
Earlier today, I wrote a post discussing the Democrats proposed budget for next year. I briefly mentioned that this proposal is a sham to the American taxpayer. Having now listened throughout the day to their acrobatic attempts to justify it, I wanted to specifically tell you why it is so bad. Here we go...
Their budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history - The Democrats' budget calls for a tax increase of every tax bracket, slashes the child tax credit, raises the death tax, and reinstates the marriage penalty. And this is just a sampling, there is more. In all, the Democrat's plan will cost taxpayers over $390 billion in the next 5 years.What is particularly frustrating about this ill-advised action is that the Democrats are blatantly ignoring the economic consequences and fiscal benefits that lower taxes have brought to the treasury the past few years. Revenue has increased in double digit [percentages] the last two years alone because of the economic expansion encouraged by reduced taxation. This revenue growth has been crucial in reducing the deficit.
The Democrats refuse to recognize this, though, and instead they just want to tax us to death. This is a recipe for disaster.
I predict 2007 will be the year the West formally switches tactics from offense to appeasement. The Iraq Study Group proposes abandoning Israel and negotiating ways to appease Iran and Syria in an effort to dissuade them from destabilizing Iraq. One idea being floated is to force Israel to give back the Golan Heights.
Another is to pressure Israelis to abandon ambitions for a unified capital at Jerusalem. To minimize Israeli interference, the ISG recommends excluding them from the conference. [emphasis added]
In a bid to open a channel to the Arabs, Israel's premier is embracing a long dormant Saudi peace proposal that would divide Jerusalem and could flood the Jewish state with Palestinian Arab refugees with family claims to land evacuated in the 1948 war that created the state.
Speaking in Tel Aviv yesterday, Prime Minister Olmert said Israel was prepared to make "sweeping, painful, and tough concessions" in order to forge open contacts with Arab states that offered in 2002 to acknowledge Israel's right to exist in exchange for its full retreat from the territories it won in the 1967 war.
"The Saudi initiative is interesting and has many sections that I would be willing to accept — though, predictably, not all of them — and it could certainly be a convenient basis for continued dialogue between us and Arab moderates," he said.
Condoleezza Rice has another round of diplomatic visits in the region, and she is expected to push the moderation of rhetoric about Israel as a forerunner to regional talks. Rice and the US have likely pushed the Saudi initiative as a replacement for the so-called Roadmap; it's doubtful Olmert would have embraced it on his own. It's hard to understand why the US keeps pushing this on Israel when the Palestinians won't support the treaties they've already signed, let alone agree to bargain in good faith with Israel now.
A US military official has said children have been used in a bomb attack in Iraq, raising fears that insurgents are using a new tactic.
General Michael Barbero said a vehicle stopped at a checkpoint was waved through because two children were seen in the back, but was then detonated.
Militants were changing tactics in response to tighter security, he said....
General Barbero said there had been also two adults in the car. They parked it near a market, abandoned it with the children inside and apparently detonated it.
The two children died, along with three civilians in the vicinity, officials said.
After warning that the threat of deadly EFPs, or Explosively Formed Penetrators, was growing at an alarming rate, the U.S. military now says there's been a "dramatic" decrease in the use of the powerful roadside bombs.If the QF can't get EFP fixin's into Iraq, and Iranian proxies are deprived of the facilities in which to assemble them, and the stepped-up presence of U.S. and Iraqi security forces impedes their distribution and deployment, the end result is fewer roadside bombs killing or maiming American and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And children are, to put it lightly, a piss-poor substitute.
EFPs "can punch through most of the armor out on the battlefield today," Army Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman said of the devices, which U.S. officials have said come from Iran. ...
"In February, we noticed a 47% decrease in explosively formed penetrators being detonated against our troops, a 53% decrease in the number of troops wounded and a 51% decrease in the number of troops killed" by the devices, he said.
The reported decrease came as the U.S. military offered to reporters what it said was proof that weapons like EFPs were being manufactured in Iran. The Iranian government has denied any involvement in providing weapons or material support to Iraq's insurgency.
According to Garver, the reasons for the marked drop in EFP incidents could include the detention of three Iranians in Baghdad in December. One of the men was believed to be a high-level Operations Officer with the Quds Force of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.
Democrats are divided on the [war] and hold only a narrow majority in Congress. Their leaders, hands tied if just a few members stray, are finding it tough to pass legislation that would require Bush to start bringing troops home.
[S]everal hurdles remained. Several anti-war liberals were expected to join Republicans in opposing the measure because they say it continues to bankroll an immoral war. And if the bill does scrape by in the House, it may sink in the Senate, where many Democrats have resisted firm timetables on the war.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, continued Wednesday to press party members to back the bill, unsure whether she had enough votes to pass it. In a closed-door meeting, former President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, tried to convince party skeptics that the bill was their best chance at ending the war.
Pelosi initially had planned for a final vote Thursday but pushed it off until Friday, a tactic that gives her more time to ensure she has the votes to pass it.
Today the House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.
Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill - for whatever reason - will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next seventeen months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.
The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades. [emphasis added]
These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The secretary of defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops, by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families. Democrats have sent their message. Now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment of decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men and women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops. And so do the American people. [emphasis added]
Capitol Hill Democrats have once again proved their inability to make Washington work in the right manner.
The Democrat Congress' maneuver to micromanage our military efforts from their offices on Capitol Hill, along with the fiscally deplorable action of loading up a wartime spending bill with pork barrel earmarks unrelated to our military's fight against terrorism has provided the American people with yet another example of the Washington mindset run amok.
Democrats in Washington have established a dangerous policy that essentially provides the enemy a planning calendar with a date certain surrender. By voting for such a policy, they have jeopardized our chances for success and endangered the mission of establishing democracy and defeating the terrorists in Iraq.
All Americans want our troops out of Iraq, but we should never do so in a way that would jeopardize American security. Setting a public timeline without consideration of future circumstances, as they may exist at that time, is reckless and irresponsible.
I urge President Bush to veto this measure and send a clear message to Washington Democrats that they must not and will not undermine the efforts of the United States military.
The violent Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with up to 3,000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal to the firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, adding a potentially even more deadly element to Iraq's violent mix.
Two senior militia commanders told The Associated Press that hundreds of these fighters have crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The breakup is an ominous development at a time when U.S. and Iraqi forces are working to defeat religious-based militias and secure Iraq under government control. While al-Sadr's forces have battled the coalition repeatedly, including pitched battles in 2004, they've mostly stayed in the background during the latest offensive.
The U.S. military Wednesday released a senior member of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's movement at the request of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.
The decision, officials said, was made with the hope of easing tensions between Sadr's Al Mahdi militia and U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Sheik Ahmed Shibani, who had been in prison for 2 1/2 years, was handed over to the office of the Shiite prime minister.
"In consultation with the prime minister and following his request, coalition leaders determined that Sheik Shibani, who was detained since 2004, could play a potentially important role in helping to moderate extremism and foster reconciliation in Iraq," U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver said in a statement.
Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy personnel during a “routine boarding operation” in Iraqi waters on Friday, Britain’s Ministry of Defence said.Is this not an act of war? Invading Iraqi territorial waters and seizing British sailors? There are any number of different purposes the Iranians may have had for this attack - holding the Brits hostage to coerce their government or ours; turning the British, our only ally of any significance left in the Coalition, against us and forcing their withdrawal; or just to show that they can capture Coaliton troops with impunity, and thus how weak and impotent we are in the face of "Persian Power".
Iran’s ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors.
“At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, fifteen British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels,” the ministry said in a statement.
“We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment.”
Alberto Gonzales is a man of integrity and high ethical standards. He has pledged to cooperate with Congress and I am confident he will. I have said that it is irresponsible to pronounce judgment on the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys before we have the facts. Unfortunately, some would prefer to make political pronouncements instead of getting the facts. There is no question that U.S. attorneys, like all political appointees, serve at the pleasure of the President. That was true when Bill Clinton's Justice Department replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys, and it remains true today. The Democrats may feign outrage to distract from their discord on the serious issues our nation faces, but sooner or later they will have to face the real responsibilities of governing.
Below, please find the President's remarks on this issue that he made [Tuesday] night.
Sincerely,
Senator Mel Martinez
Republican Party General Chairman
Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms.Reiterates the baseline of this phony dispute. Very good, because with no criminal allegations, invoking executive privilege against the Donk subpeonas to Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be airtight.
The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We're determined to correct the problem.Too apologetic. They didn't owe anybody, much less the Democrats, ANY explanation for these personnel moves. Unfortunately, the "New Tone" compelled them to provide explanations anyway, and communication is for this White House like walking a straight line is for Ted Kennedy on an average Saturday night. Which, in turn, makes correction of the problem highly unlikely, since they don't even grasp what the true problem really is.
Today I'm also announcing the following steps my Administration is taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons. Second, we're giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.Way, way too much, IMHO. Sure, these disclosures document the utter falsity of the Democrats' hysterical allegations, which is all fine and good, but it also keeps this kerfuffle crackling indefinitely when what it really needs is to be starved of fuel instead. Or, put another way, there's no need for such defensive measures, or to try yet again to demonstrated how "fair" and "reasonable" they can be to people who don't have the first notion of what those terms even mean.
In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department has provided the Congress more than 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department documents, including those reflecting direct communications with White House staff.
This, in itself, is an extraordinary level of disclosure of an internal agency in White House communications.
Third, I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White House played in the resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't recognize the difference, Mr. President. Besides, it won't be enough for the Dems, and that'll just give the "controversy" longer legs.Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having - the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. In addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and emails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff, related to this issue. These extraordinary steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue.
However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.
The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials. [emphasis added]Hmmm. HMMM. Why do I keep picturing a matador waving a red banner in front of an angry bull?
Last night as I finally made my way back to the Sunshine State, I watched President Bush’s press conference in its entirety. At first I thought, “He doesn’t even care anymore.” The President was unusually feisty. But he was also charmless. I can’t remember any other time in his Administration when he’s made a public appearance and been so utterly indifferent to looking and acting nice.
And then I thought, “Shrewd.”
The President understands that, political obsessives aside, no one really cares about this U.S. Attorney thing....In short, there’s no Constitutional crisis to see here – just move along. But the President understands something about these Democrats who now sit on Capitol Hill. They were elected with a narrow agenda – Get Bush!!! And if you can’t get Bush, be damn sure to get Rove!
Partisan witch-hunts are to be the order of the day. The President also understands that the American public is predisposed to dislike Congress. What’s more, this Congress, once its true colors show, will be uniquely unpopular. Already, Gallup has Congress’ approval numbers sinking to the level the Republican Congress sat at before the November calamity. [Though there's some question as to whether that unpopularity is do to the Donks' partisan witchhunts or that they're not producing scalps fast enough.]
So why not pick a fight with Congress? Drag the bloody affair out. Let the battle rage so long that it becomes apparent that the only thing this Congress cares about is partisan warfare. What’s best about this little plan is it involves a freak side show in which the performers are Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. It doesn’t involve matters of real consequence such as the war.
SPECTER: If we don't like what we get, we can always issue a subpoena, and move with a subpoena if we don't like what we get.
LEAHY: That's not -
SPECTER: Why not - why not take what we can get in the efforts of -
LEAHY: No! What - no! What - No! What we're told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing. We are told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House will determine what the agenda is. That to me is nothing.