....Chuck Schumer, this morning complained on the Senate floor about the impact of an “ideological, extreme group” that “set back our country” by opposing the immigration bill. He said: "Yesterday was a very sad day for America…an ideological, extreme group set back our country. On immigration we had lots of prattling, lots of scare tactics, and, as a result, the immigration bill is paralyzed."
Are Max Baucus and Evan Bayh and Jeff Bingaman and Sherrod Brown and Robert Byrd and Byron Dorgan and Tom Harkin and Mary Landrieu and Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor and Jay Rockefeller and Bernie Sanders and Debbie Stabenow and Jon Tester and James Webb all ideological extremists in Senator Schumer's book? They all voted against the immigration bill.
The Chairman of the Republican Party on Friday lambasted Democrats and Republicans who helped kill an immigration bill in the Senate and challenged them to come up with a solution beyond "just build a fence along the border.''
"The voices of negativity now have a responsibility to come up with an answer,'' RNC Chairman and U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, R-FL said.
"How will you fix the situation to make peoples' lives better? How will you continue to grow the economy? How will we bring people out of the shadows for our national security and for the sake of being a country that is just?'' he demanded.
The answers seemed very clear to everyone outside of the Senate chambers for the past four weeks. Instead of offering a repeat of 1986, fix the underlying problems that allow for lousy border and visa security, as Congress has repeatedly promised, before saying "Trust us!" How difficult is that to comprehend?
When President Bush's "grand bargain" on immigration fell apart, Jeff Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama who is named after a pair of famous Confederates, was very proud.
"Hopefully our Senate has learned some things," Sessions crowed on the Senate floor on Thursday after his colleagues killed a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration law, bouncing on his toes and struggling to contain a grin, like a boy who just popped his lynching-cherry. [emphases added by me, the last nine words added by Ace of Spades]
His deep Southern roots are evident in his full name: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, a family name handed down from his father and grandfather after the former president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, and General P.G.T. Beauregard, who fired on Fort Sumter in 1861 to open the Civil War.
Call Edwards' imperialism Inverted Imperialism: Wherever America is, she should not be. Wherever she is not, send her soon. He will boldly go where no Bush has gone before. We cannot get out of Iraq and into Sudan quickly enough, as if the problem in each country isn't the mass slaughter of innocents. We must confront Hezbollah but leave Iraqis to the sectarian wolves. North Korea and Iran are to be called out on the carpet, while Iraq, in shambles, should be left on its own to discover a "political solution," even as the most necessary ingredient of political compromise - security - remains elusive.
Principled military isolationism is fine, admirable, even. Attempting to build both national security and anti-war credentials simultaneously by abandoning one partisan intervention for another is grossly inhumane.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the Administration.
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
We should keep our eyes and ears open for other cancellations. If a rash of them suddenly appears, I think we will have our answer. Given the mood of the activists in the Democratic Party, Gore could give Hillary a real problem in the primaries - and she might wind up at the bottom of the ticket.
Having Gore in the race would certainly add entertainment value. Also, if Gore jumps in, can John Kerry be far behind?
The winner of this debate? Anyone who skipped watching it.
At least one petrol station has been set on fire in the Iranian capital, Tehran, after the government announced fuel rationing for private motorists. Iranians were given only two hours' notice of the move that limits private drivers to a hundred litres of fuel a month.
Despite its huge energy reserves Iran lacks refining capacity, forcing it to import about 40% of its petrol.
Tehran is trying to rein in fuel consumption over fears of possible UN sanctions over its nuclear programme.
Iran fears the West could sanction its petrol imports and cripple its economy.
With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.
Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky, that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.
Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said. His side of the debate, the chief justice said, was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown,” the landmark 1954 decision that declared school segregation unconstitutional. “When it comes to using race to assign children to schools, history will be heard,” he said.
HILLARY!: For anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes. This decision turned the clock back on Brown vs. Board of Education. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. The march is not finished...
SENATOR HAIRPLUGS: Still the defining issue... People criticized me for being awful tough on Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. The problem was, the rest of us weren't tough enough on them.
RICHARDSON [BILL....GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO]: "Leadership is about being authentic. It's about speaking honestly... " Richardon’s answer meanders as much as any other… Cites himself as the first Latino.
Donna Brazile gives an approving nod.
Edwards panders a bit by thanking the Howard Bison, a guaranteed applause line. Goes on to cite two Americas, two public school systems in America, two health care systems... race plays an enormous role in health care disparities. All of us have work to do. I'm making sure that for people of color, their voice is heard and their vote is counted.
OBAMA: Cites Thurgood Marshall and founders of Howard - if it had not been for them, I would not be standing here today... Their idea was not that racial equality was not just good for African-Americans, but for America as a whole....
KUCINICH: Criticizes those who say, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, then they steal your boots." Calls for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing educational
equality. Eliminate No Child Left Behind. Take away resources from war and military buildup and make sure every child gets a quality education.
GRAVEL: This is fairest debate we've had thus far. Racism was here when . Goes to criticize war on drugs. Compares to prohibition. Pledges to end war on drugs, says it savages our inner city. Compares Iraq to Vietnam, and says drugs are a public health issue.
DODD: Thanks Howard U. The shame of all this is that long before this decision came down, shame of resegregation has been going on for years in this country... No issue
is more important to me than education. This is the key to equal access in our education. Calls court decision "a major step backwards." As president, I would use any tools available to me to make sure we reverse this decision of today.
Today's Supreme Court decision in the race-based school assignment cases turns out to be a disappointment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an excellent opinion explaining why the two plans are unconstitutional, and four other Justices agreed with the result. However, one of them, Justice Kennedy, would not sign on to a key part of the Roberts opinion - the part that says assigning students to schools by race cannot be justified as a means of achieving a racial balance in particular schools that reflects the school district's racial demographics. This leaves the door open for school systems to develop different types of plans for assigning students by race for that purpose, and then to try and persuade sympathetic lower courts that the plan in question does not run afoul of what Kennedy said in his concurrence.
A car bomb left in London's West End would have caused "significant injury or loss of life" if it had not been defused by police.
The explosive device, consisting of gas cyclinders and nails, was discovered at 2am outside a packed nightclub in The Haymarket, near Piccadilly Circus. ...
One witness said that door staff at the nightclub Tiger, Tiger alerted police after the car was driven into bins last night and the driver ran off.
The witness said the large silver saloon car was being driven "erratically" before the minor crash. The driver was not stopped.
Police in London's bustling nightclub and theater district on Friday defused a car bomb that could have killed hundreds after an ambulance crew spotted smoke coming from a Mercedes filled with a lethal mix of gasoline, propane and nails. Hours later, police confirmed a second explosives-rigged car was found nearby.
The first car bomb, found near Piccadilly Circus, was powerful enough to have caused "significant injury or loss of life" at a time when hundreds were in the area, British anti-terror police chief Peter Clarke said.
Clarke said Friday evening that the second car — another Mercedes — was originally parked illegally on nearby Cockspur Street, but had been towed from the West End to an impound lot near Hyde Park.
"The vehicle was found to contain very similar materials to those that had been found in the first car," he said. "There was a considerable amount of fuel and gas canisters. As in the first vehicle, there was also a quantity of nails. This like the first device was potentially viable."
British police have a “crystal clear” picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears “a close resemblance” to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.
Officials say the suspect had been taken into custody in connection with the case of al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot, who was convicted of orchestrating a vehicle bomb plot involving targets in London, New York, Newark, N.J. and Washington, D.C.
Last year, al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot was convicted by a British court for a plot to use limousines to carry similar bombs as those defused today to similar targets as the nightclubs allegedly targeted today.
In his own personal manual, Barot described how the cylinders, "if carefully orchestrated can be as powerful as exploding TNT," and "are easily available to the general public," designed for a "synchronized, concurrent (back-to-back) execution on the same day and time." Videos posted on al Qaeda Web sites also show in full detail how to rig propane and butane cylinders as powerful bombs.
And today's explosive devices - composed of five or six propane and butane cylinders as well as thirty-three gallons of gasoline, all rigged to detonate with calls to two cell phones - followed Barot's manual and the al Qaeda videos closely. Officials say the cell phones failed to initiate the explosions, even after each phone had been called twice, preventing a shrapnel-filled fireball from launching and killing people in the surrounding area.
I want to see Rush Limbaugh and Sean (Hannity) them bloviate in all their glory. Everyone knows he’s plugged in to Republican National Headquarters. He’s thoroughly discredited and I’d like to keep it that way. Let right-wing talk radio go on just as it is now. Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton.”
“This hasn’t been the most scintillating debates in the history of the House floor. But the folks on talk radio and yap-yap tv are publicly admitting they aren’t 'fair and balanced.' If the media were really 'liberal,' then conservatives would be pushing for the Fairness Doctrine."
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) released Wednesday a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which says the new Senate immigration bill contains a major loophole in border security. Supporters of the bill say it provides $4.4 billion in immediate mandatory spending for border enforcement, but according to the CRS analysis, the funds could also be used immediately to implement the amnesty provisions [of the] bill.
“This is just another example of how this bill claims to do one thing but does something else entirely. It’s another example of an empty promise being used to buy votes for amnesty,” said Senator DeMint. “The supporters of this bill have been running around trying to convince people that this money will be used to secure the border first, but now we know that’s not the case. If you read the fine print, the bill says this money can also be used for amnesty.
According to the CRS report provided to Senator DeMint, the mandatory spending in the bill could immediately be used for Z visas. It says, “(r)eceiving, processing, and adjudicating applications for the Z visa authorized by Title VI of the Act is one of the trigger mechanisms outlined in Section 1; this means that funding from the Immigration Security Account could be used for this purpose.”
In addition, the report says the funds could be used for Y visas and other programs once the trigger mechanisms have been met but it does not require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify the trigger. The report says, “S. 1639 does not explicitly stipulate whether the certification required by Section 1 would have to take place prior to funding being made available for the additional purposes outlined in Section 2(C).”
“Not only can this money be used for things other than border security and enforcement, it looks like another backdoor trick to promote amnesty,” said Senator DeMint. “If Congress appropriates money later this year for the border, the money provided in this bill will turn into a slush fund the Administration can use to ensure illegal immigrants are legalized.” [emphases added]
I’ve admired this President for a long time, but I’ve reached a point where I’ve had it up to here (my hand is at my forehead) with this Administration’s chronic obtuseness and arrogance. The top priority right now for the Administration should be the war. And yet the President spent what little political capital he had trying to shove this atrocious immigration bill down the country’s throat....All I can add is what I said last Saturday: We all knew that Dubya was a huge open-borders guy. He never made any secret of it going clear back to the genesis of his presidency in early 1999. But the 9/11 attacks HAD to change that priority. If he wanted his amnesty and his guest-worker program, both his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and the politics of the issue demanded that he establish a track record of vigorous border control and enforcement of existing immigration laws at a minimum. With that baseline any White House-backed immigration legislation would then have had to augment the enforcement side first; the combination of both would then have laid the foundation for an advocacy of amnesty that the public could have reasonably accepted.
President Bush is going to need a united base come September if he wants to stay the course in Iraq. Given that consideration, calling 90% of that base bigots probably wasn’t a very good idea....
Will the Republican base forgive the Administration for its actions surrounding this bill? My guess is no. We’re moving on to finding another leader for the party, and in 7 months or so we’ll have one. In the meantime, thanks to this idiotic gambit, there’s a power vacuum right now in the White House.
Now, the Democrats have given us the greatest gift of all – an issue that moves the country much more than members of the political class realize and on which the Democrats find themselves on the wrong side. The Republican congressional candidates should be able to have a lot of fun with the issue of border security in 2008. So should the Republican presidential nominee....That would take a bit of jiu-jitsuing to pull off, but it's hard not to notice the shrill haste with which, for example, Crazy Nancy tried to "blame" the killing of a "shamnesty" bill that nearly four Americans out of every five detested on the Republicans. Which means the Dems are all but handing a winning issue to the GOP for the rest of this election cycle, if they'll only have the brains to take it and run with it.
“There’s racism in this debate,” Mr. Graham said. “Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally.”Senator Graham, you pusillanimous, perfidious pissant, you can take your senatorial deliberation and go bleep yourself with it, then pass the sloppy seconds around to "Sailor," T.L. Worthless, and Uncle Teddy, who is doubtless very familiar with the concept. But be sure to save your personal Profiles in Cowardice award for your AWOL Minority Leader, who stalwartly took a powder on the whole thing yesterday and disappeared, an act of rank cowardice that puts him right down there with Bill Frist, T.L. Worthless, Bob Dole, and Howie Baker in the "Doofus" hall of fame.
Rocketing through Republican Washington is a memo predicting Senator Harry Reid will use a unprecedented combination of legislative procedures to shove through the immigration bill today—without real opposition.
The memo was drafted by a former Secretary for the Majority and Minority in the U.S. Senate, Elizabeth B. Letchworth. As an expert in senate rules, she was asked by several senators skeptical of the immigration bill to use her sources and her expertise to anticipate the legislative moves of the immigration bill supporters. She wrote the memo as private work, for concerned friends.
This memo, made public on Pajamas Media for the first time, lays out a purported plan by Democrats to use obscure senate procedures to force through the immigration bill hworkwith no amendments from skeptical or critical senators.
Letchworth predicts that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try this [Wednes]day.
She calls it “The Reid scenario,” which she says will kick off in less than two hours from this writing. Letchwork writes in an email: “The Reid scenario of offering amendments in strategic places in order to block any and all other amendments will commence when they return from their weekly party caucuses @ 2:15PM. [Today, Eastern] At the end of the amendment. offering process Senator Reid will file cloture on the bill.”
Someone once said not to watch how sausage or legislation are made. Today especially I prefer to be at the sausage factory.That's right, dear readers, a 373-page "amendment" to a 388-page bill. Doesn't that little detail alone tell you how utterly bleeped-up this whole thing has become? Multi-hundred page "amendments" nobody has seen, full of "mistakes" and "omissions" that strangely only seem to affect Republican amendments, that when they're noticed get the "amendment" sent back for "re-write," AGAIN with no chance to read them. And yet floor debate goes on anyway! How can you f'ing debate an f'ing bill before it's f'ing written? Can this get any worse?
As if the Senate floor situation could get any worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s staff is now rewriting the Clay Pigeon amendment behind closed doors. It is the intent of the Majority Leader to bring this new unread Amendment up without the Republicans seeing the language. Yesterday Senator Reid did not have his massive 373 page amendment ready when he started debate on it and mistakes were made in the initial drafting. This fact was not discovered until Republicans objected to waiving the reading of the bill, and the Senate Clerk had nothing to read. Shockingly, Reid scrambled around, put the floor in morning business for a few hours, and then allowed Kennedy’s staff make final changes to the amendment. The language was finally made available around 5:30 pm and Reid “graciously” gave Republicans the night to go through it before moving to it this morning.
This morning Republicans announced that Reid’s amendment did not include the Sessions EITC provision in the touchback section, despite the fact that all previously passed amendments were supposed to be incorporated in the bill and the Clay Pigeon amendment. This oversight is the only mistake so far found, yet there may be other mistakes and intentional omissions in the 373 page amendment. This morning Reid put the floor back in morning business and sent his staff off to rewrite the mega amendment once again. Today, “the most deliberative body in the world,” is left to debate legislation that they do not have a copy of…
After the Senate voted to cut off debate on the question of whether to resurrect the Senate immigration bill, Senator Reid set up unique debate process that guarantees votes several hand-picked amendments but blocks consideration of all others. Senator Reid used a parliamentary tool called a “clay pigeon” to divide a giant amendment into multiple amendments and then moved to block all others. No other member of the Senate besides Reid could have accomplished all of this without being stopped by another Senator. No other Majority Leader in history has done this.
Republicans better wake up soon or they can expect Senator Reid to use this tactic in the future to raise taxes, increase spending, and weaken our national security. [emphases added]
That’s why the fundamental bill has no credibility, and basically what we are saying today is it is dead on arrival in the House, we can’t have secret deals, this has to go through committee, it has to go in pieces. A comprehensive bill will not pass the House.The evil Barney Fife has overreached so far he ripped his own arms out of their sockets. Now the GOP has to take this exercise in corrupt authoritarianism and flog the Democrats mercilessly between now and November 2008 the same damn way they used the so-called "Republican culture of corruption" against us in 2006.
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip [Ali Dickbar al-Durbini] (D-IL). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech.
"Congress must take action to ensure that this archaic remnant of a bygone era of American radio does not return. There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.
"During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty. It is with this in mind that I will introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
"The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.
"John F. Kennedy stated, 'We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.'"
Whether you attribute tonight's results to the "six year itch" or the war that President Bush said from the beginning would be a long one or any of the myriad of Democrat memes throughout the year, the bottom line is that the American electorate has made some profoundly foolish and short-sighted choices the consequences of which will not be long in manifesting themselves beginning in January. A huge tax increase is a certainty without any legislative action at all from the new House majority by virtue of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Pulling the plug on the war, both through bitterly recriminatory hearings that feed Bush lieutenants backwards through the bunghole on everything from terrorist surveillance to "torture" of enemy "detainees" and outright defunding of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is inevitable. [emphasis added]
When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, but some are growing impatient with U.S. operations in Afghanistan as well.
A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.
Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), a senior defense authorizer [Goodness, but that's a terrifying thought], wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there “futile” in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history....
“We are finished there, militarily speaking,” said Abercrombie, the chairman of the Air and Land Armed Services subcommittee.
“There is no useful purpose for our troops there,” Abercrombie stated in a recent interview. “The military should withdraw now,” he said, though he stressed that the U.S. could keep “isolated pockets” of special operators.
Instead of using the military to effect political change, the U.S. should have a complete diplomatic re-engagement in the region, “with an understanding that our role there should change,” Abercrombie added....
Representative Diane Watson (D-CA), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, said that it is time for the U.S. military to start leaving Afghanistan and the Middle East altogether. “We are not securing America by being there,” she pressed. “The longer we are there, the more plots start growing in our country.”
Watson, who supported the war in Afghanistan, said that the military ought “to start leaving Afghanistan” and that the U.S. should allow Afghan officials to “formulate and run their own government.”
Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have stressed over the past several months that the U.S. should refocus on stabilizing Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden, the architect of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
“The Taliban played a role in the 9/11 attacks by providing a safe haven for bin Laden,” said Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesman. “Preventing a successful resurgence by the Taliban is a national security objective of the United States, and our troops will remain in Afghanistan until the objective is achieved.”...
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, “A lot of the problems in Iraq are of our own making. In Afghanistan we still have the continued threat of al Qaeda having a base to operate. We have to continue to be there.”
“[The American people] are prepared to take losses, if they make sense. You don’t hear people saying, ‘We need to get out of Afghanistan.’ People know the difference,” said Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI).
As it happens, the only way a truly rapid disengagement and redeployment from Iraq can be accomplished would be via a kind of Dunkirk in the desert: a pell-mell rush for the beachhead points of embarkation the object of which would be to extricate as many personnel as possible, probably without regard for their equipment and surely at the expense of their safety.The reason for this is eminently practical: we have too many troops and too much stuff in Iraq to carry out an orderly withdrawal in anything less than ten to fourteen months at best. This is because all of the equipment, weaponry, vehicles, etc. have to be cleaned, assembled, crated, loaded on transports, etc. And given that we would be exiting via the same way we entered - Kuwait, with no access to Saudi ports - that would further slow down the unnecessary exodus, all the more so if the retreat was compressed into a ridiculously and dangerously compressed political timetable. Can you say "world's biggest bottleneck"?
[U]nder the approach to withdrawal advocated by virtually all Democratic leaders and several prominent Republicans, Americans will surely be retreating under fire. As Tom Bowman put it, Americans “would likely have to fight insurgents overland, all the way to Kuwait.” This endeavor, according to one officer quoted by NPR, would require “attack helicopters [and] recon helicopters in the air, possibly tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and, of course, armored Humvees [on the ground]” providing protection for the disengaging forces.
The result would almost certainly be calamitous. It may even be that the United States military would be subjected to the reverse of the notorious “Highway of Death” of Desert Storm, albeit on a smaller scale. Perhaps a few legislators still recall what happened to Iraqi Republican Guard and other units who were fleeing along a fixed road system in Kuwait and came under murderous Coalition fire — until JCS Chairman Colin Powell, unnerved by negative publicity, ordered U.S. forces to cease their assault. There is no likelihood that al Qaeda and other terrorists will be similarly moved to pity our troops should they be forced by politicians at home to make a similar evacuation. [emphases added]
Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, the Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".
An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran - but nobody has officially declared it."
"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."
The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.
The Admiral isn't comfortable with the source of the story being the British equivalent of "USA Today with hooters" and questions whether the Iranians would be foolish enough to jump the gun like this. I can't speak to the first part, but the latter makes perfect sense to me. After the past four years of feckless, appeasenik dawdling on the part of the West vis-a-vie Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the Coalition's utter passivity in the face of blatant Iranian proxy warfare against our forces in Iraq AND Afghanistan, can it really be surprising that the mullahs may have concluded we're so weak-willed and cowardly that they can send their regular forces rolling across the border before we've even started to evacuate our own? Put yourself in Adolph Ahmadinejad's shoes: if American politicans are demanding that we run away from mere "insurgents," wouldn't you conclude that a rout was just waiting to happen? Why NOT invade directly? It wouldn't be the first time that a dictator with global ambitions was emboldened to recklessness by the unkillable Western pacifism fetish.
Or maybe the Sun is full of silicone, and the mullahs will wait to invade until we're in the throes of the Democrat-enforced pell-mell bug-out. Bet they could turn it into a "highway of death" for the Great Satan a lot better than their scraggly "insurgent" proxies could.
Afghanistan is landlocked, so I don't know how the Dems are going to fill up the bodybags fleeing from there. Direct surrender to the Taliban? Loading up air transports that'll get shot down over Pakistan? Seek asylum in Iran?
I've long said that the Democrats' goose-stepping march back to power would wade through American blood. The sheer malevolence of their heedless, impenetrable ignorance is, it seems, making of me a prophet after all.