Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
As previously reported, one of Barack Obama's mentors is the infamous Snuffy Pfleger, the notorious gun-grabbing Catholic priest. Sebastian has more on this story that is of growing interest to the gun rights community:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/04/08/obama-ties-to-snuffy-pfleger/
And it seems that the Snuffy-Obama connection has also caught the attention of the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_06-2008_04_12.shtml#1207631070
Bitter reports that the NRA Convention is headed to Phoenix in 2009:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=8088
Traction Control blogs on .75 caliber technology:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=1034
Breda thinks she may have found a small automatic pistol to her liking:
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/2008/04/search-might-be-over.html
Uncle says to get over it already! We have some allies in the government. In fact, The Liberty Sphere was paid a visit today by someone in the U.S. Government. But I have never been investigated nor have I been a target. Read Uncle's words of wisdom:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/04/08/gun_blogging_notes/
Nicki comments on the growing smoking bans around and about, and yes, it is an issue of personal liberty. But this post is written only as Nicki can:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/04/lets-kill-all-lawyers.html
Who says there is no slippery slope? Alphecca writes about a handgun ban petition in Canada:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=709
Michelle Malkin has the complete, infuriating blow by blow of Petraeus' appearance on Capitol Hill. Democrats came out swinging, heckling the General, even as they made sure hecklers were given access to the hearing room to stage yet another stupid 'protest':
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/08/petraeus-on-the-hill/
John Lott reports that the Brady Bunch has been stopped by Virginia Tech. Good for them!:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/04/virginia-tech-blocks-plans-brady.html
Showing posts with label General David Petraeus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General David Petraeus. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
GOP, Bush to Blame for Splintered Reagan Coalition
The GOP has successfully splintered the Reagan Coalition by embracing candidates who in no way represent Reagan conservatism. Make no mistake, the Coalition is still there; it's just that there is no candidate who embraces ALL of its precepts.
To a great degree the blame for this deplorable turn of events can be laid directly at the feet of George W. Bush, who claimed the principles of Reagan conservatism but who governed as a neo-con who made some terribly awful decisions.
Thus, we blundered through the first few years in Iraq until General Petraeus took the helm. The BAFTE has continued its assault on gun owners and gun retailers unabated. Judges have been appointed to the bench who have run slipshod over the rights of property owners in favor of a highly skewed and lopsided view of 'eminent domain.'
And then, let's not forget Bush's most despicable transgression of all--his absolute, stubborn refusal to do anything at all about illegal aliens, protecting the border, and removing incentives for illegals to come here in the first place.
In many ways he has been worse than Bill Clinton on this issue, and that is saying a mouthful.
The ONLY two vestiges from the Reagan era that Bush has kept intact are the support for the pro-life position and the view that tax cuts are good for the American people and the economy.
This has opened the door for those candidates who are even further to the Left than Bush, such as Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee.
Even Ron Paul fails the Reagan Coalition test due to his dangerous, and frankly, frightening views on U.S. foreign policy, terrorism, and the War in Iraq.
Thus, here we are stuck with a bunch of charlatans who only give lip service to the Reagan legacy. Only Fred Thompson could truthfully lay claim to the Reagan mantle.
But the GOP and their major contributors apparently have decided they had rather have 'moderate' Republicans who all now claim to be conservative, rather than a true, conservative heavy-weight who had delineated in great detail his views on the issues, including those the others will not dare touch.
The fact that the GOP is now poised to give its approval to a big-government neo-con (this is all that's left of the viable candidates), while rejecting Fred Thompson, is almost unforgivable.
And for this we can point to the failure of President George W. Bush to keep the Reagan Coalition together, moving in the same direction.
To a great degree the blame for this deplorable turn of events can be laid directly at the feet of George W. Bush, who claimed the principles of Reagan conservatism but who governed as a neo-con who made some terribly awful decisions.
Thus, we blundered through the first few years in Iraq until General Petraeus took the helm. The BAFTE has continued its assault on gun owners and gun retailers unabated. Judges have been appointed to the bench who have run slipshod over the rights of property owners in favor of a highly skewed and lopsided view of 'eminent domain.'
And then, let's not forget Bush's most despicable transgression of all--his absolute, stubborn refusal to do anything at all about illegal aliens, protecting the border, and removing incentives for illegals to come here in the first place.
In many ways he has been worse than Bill Clinton on this issue, and that is saying a mouthful.
The ONLY two vestiges from the Reagan era that Bush has kept intact are the support for the pro-life position and the view that tax cuts are good for the American people and the economy.
This has opened the door for those candidates who are even further to the Left than Bush, such as Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee.
Even Ron Paul fails the Reagan Coalition test due to his dangerous, and frankly, frightening views on U.S. foreign policy, terrorism, and the War in Iraq.
Thus, here we are stuck with a bunch of charlatans who only give lip service to the Reagan legacy. Only Fred Thompson could truthfully lay claim to the Reagan mantle.
But the GOP and their major contributors apparently have decided they had rather have 'moderate' Republicans who all now claim to be conservative, rather than a true, conservative heavy-weight who had delineated in great detail his views on the issues, including those the others will not dare touch.
The fact that the GOP is now poised to give its approval to a big-government neo-con (this is all that's left of the viable candidates), while rejecting Fred Thompson, is almost unforgivable.
And for this we can point to the failure of President George W. Bush to keep the Reagan Coalition together, moving in the same direction.
Monday, September 24, 2007
New York Times Comes Clean on 'Betray-Us' Flap
In a stunning admission of sorts, the New York Times has come clean about the now-infamous 'General Betray-Us' ad it ran in the paper from Moveon.org. Without outright admitting to mistakes, the newspaper's ombudsman stated the Times had 'apparently' violated its own internal rules and standards about refraining from running personal attack ads.
Further, the newspaper admitted that it may have 'crossed a line' when it gave Moveon a massive discount for running an ad that was obviously purely political in nature.
According to news sources Moveon.org paid the Times a mere $65,000 for a full-page ad. Under normal conditions such an ad would cost roughly $70,000 more.
Moveon.org immediately responded to the ombudsman report by stating it would sent to the Times the extra $70,000 for the ad, plus an additional lump sum for whatever reason Moveon thinks it necessary to try to amend its reputation.
Obvious troubling questions arise from the 'Betray-Us' flap regarding the mainstream media's complicity with leftwing political causes, including but not limited to an examination of possible violations of federal law. Campaign finance reform supposedly addressed issues such as unfair advantage. Yet the Times clearly provided such an advantage to Moveon while refraining from offering such sweet deals to conservative groups.
Another glaring question revolves around yet another example of media bias exhibited in this latest furor created by a mainstream media outlet that was caught red-handed in engaging in the very practice for which it denounces radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
For example, is the Times willing to provide, say, the NRA, a full-page ad for $65,000 on the very day that the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Heller vs. D.C., the case on handgun rights which the District appealed to the high court?
Such an ad would appear when pigs fly. Yet the Times exhibited no hesitation to run such a personal attack ad on the very day that a highly respected and trusted U.S. General gave his testimony before Congress on the progress of the surge in Iraq.
Over the past two decades the Times has disintegrated into such an obvious leftwing political rag that it bears no resemblance to its former glory as the definitive news source in America. No wonder Rupert Murdock wanted the Wall Street Journal along with Dow Jones. The Big Apple needs some balance in its news sources.
A further significant development on Sunday was Hillary Clinton's Sunday morning news talk show blitz to defend her vote in the Senate against condemning the Times ad. Her excuse that she wishes to 'debate the War in Iraq and not some newspaper ad' is stunning in its irrationality.
How does voting to condemn a personal attack on General Petraeus in the New York Times prevent Hillary Clinton in any way from debating the Iraq War?
The fact that the mainstream media failed to ask this question, allowing Hillary's statement to get by without as much as a flinch on the part of most reporters and talking heads speaks volumes about their bias.
Hillary's Democratic colleagues in the Senate, many of whom voted to condemn the ad yet who are highly critical of Bush's handling of the War, do not seem to think their vote takes them away from debating the subject of Iraq one bit.
So why is Hillary going out of her way to steer clear of any criticism of Moveon's ad or of the New York Times for running it? Simply put, she knows on which side her bread is buttered.
Further, the newspaper admitted that it may have 'crossed a line' when it gave Moveon a massive discount for running an ad that was obviously purely political in nature.
According to news sources Moveon.org paid the Times a mere $65,000 for a full-page ad. Under normal conditions such an ad would cost roughly $70,000 more.
Moveon.org immediately responded to the ombudsman report by stating it would sent to the Times the extra $70,000 for the ad, plus an additional lump sum for whatever reason Moveon thinks it necessary to try to amend its reputation.
Obvious troubling questions arise from the 'Betray-Us' flap regarding the mainstream media's complicity with leftwing political causes, including but not limited to an examination of possible violations of federal law. Campaign finance reform supposedly addressed issues such as unfair advantage. Yet the Times clearly provided such an advantage to Moveon while refraining from offering such sweet deals to conservative groups.
Another glaring question revolves around yet another example of media bias exhibited in this latest furor created by a mainstream media outlet that was caught red-handed in engaging in the very practice for which it denounces radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
For example, is the Times willing to provide, say, the NRA, a full-page ad for $65,000 on the very day that the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Heller vs. D.C., the case on handgun rights which the District appealed to the high court?
Such an ad would appear when pigs fly. Yet the Times exhibited no hesitation to run such a personal attack ad on the very day that a highly respected and trusted U.S. General gave his testimony before Congress on the progress of the surge in Iraq.
Over the past two decades the Times has disintegrated into such an obvious leftwing political rag that it bears no resemblance to its former glory as the definitive news source in America. No wonder Rupert Murdock wanted the Wall Street Journal along with Dow Jones. The Big Apple needs some balance in its news sources.
A further significant development on Sunday was Hillary Clinton's Sunday morning news talk show blitz to defend her vote in the Senate against condemning the Times ad. Her excuse that she wishes to 'debate the War in Iraq and not some newspaper ad' is stunning in its irrationality.
How does voting to condemn a personal attack on General Petraeus in the New York Times prevent Hillary Clinton in any way from debating the Iraq War?
The fact that the mainstream media failed to ask this question, allowing Hillary's statement to get by without as much as a flinch on the part of most reporters and talking heads speaks volumes about their bias.
Hillary's Democratic colleagues in the Senate, many of whom voted to condemn the ad yet who are highly critical of Bush's handling of the War, do not seem to think their vote takes them away from debating the subject of Iraq one bit.
So why is Hillary going out of her way to steer clear of any criticism of Moveon's ad or of the New York Times for running it? Simply put, she knows on which side her bread is buttered.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Petraeus, Patriots, Prostitutes, and the Pimp
By all accounts the appearance of General David H. Petraeus before Congress yesterday was nothing less than a three-ring circus. The entire fiasco can be laid directly at the feet of the Democratic leadership who obviously did nothing, or very little, to insure a mature, orderly proceeding.
The embarrassing buffoonery started when Democratic committee chair Ike Skelton refused to listen to GOP warnings about potential disruptions at the hands of pinko anti-war demonstrators.
And disrupt, they did.
But first, we were treated to the highly embarrassing episode of the dead microphones. Neither the General's nor the Ambassador's microphones would work. Perhaps, as one blogger put it, this was perfectly symbolic. The Democrats had no intention of actually listening to the report, since they had already begun attacking it before it was issued.
Once the microphones were working, it was time for the pinkos to protest.
Of course, Rep. Skelton was forced to put on his best 'I am highly offended' face and throw the bums out...but not before they were allowed to heckle General Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Skelton believed that these types of made-for-TV demonstrations would somehow help to show Americans that those awful, despicable, war-mongering symbols of America's shame in Iraq returned to Washington only to face a massive outpouring of spontaneous heckling and hatred.
Why else would he allow them entrance to the committee hearing given that he had already been warned that troublemakers were on the prowl?
Yet, it could well be that Skelton's plot backfired. Petraeus appeared calm, steady, and professional under intense pressure. His character had already been impugned before he was allowed to speak a word, yet the General conducted himself with utmost dignity and steadiness.
Congressional Republicans conducted themselves with dignity, patriotism, and maturity as their colleagues in the other Party threw a tantrum.
It was the Democrats who came off looking like desperate, eager opportunists, searching for everything--anything--they could get their hands on to try to discredit the General and the Ambassador.
In fact, they appeared almost as if they were prostitutes, having sold themselves to individuals and entities that have anything but America's best interests at heart.
For example, Moveon.org, the anti-war organization of the Democratic Party, referred to General Petraeus as 'General Betray-Us.' They even bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to say it.
In the ad Moveon also accused Petraeus of 'cooking the books,' lying about the figures, in order to present a positive picture.
Back down at the funny farm in Congress, Democrat Tom Lantos launched into a lengthy Petraeus-bash prior to the General's report, and stated forthrightly about the General's ensuing words, 'I don't buy a word of it.'
U.S. Representative and Republican Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter, R-California, responded to the attack by reminding the committee that Petraeus had been confirmed unanimously by Congress earlier this year, and that the proceedings should continue only with the stipulation that all would presume that Petraeus would offer 'a candid, independent assessment with integrity.'
Perhaps Hunter's stipulation was a bit too much for the ethically-challenged members of the Democratic leadership. Having sold themselves to the highest bidder, i.e., the anti-war, pinko nutcases of the extremist leftwing, these prostitutes would now sell the nation's soul to them as well.
At this hour, not a single Democratic candidate for President, nor any Democratic member of Congress has denounced, repudiated, or condemned Moveon.org for its blatant disrespect and character assassination of one of the America's most trusted military officials.
Former Democrat and Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman joined with John McCain in drafting a letter to be sent to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, calling on the Majority Leader to denounce and distance himself and his Party from the Moveon.org ad.
Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, refused.
Of course he refused. When you have sold out like a prostitute, you are forever indebted to the pimp. And in this case the pimp is somewhat elusive but encompasses the Democratic National Committee and those it needs to please in order to get the cash.
But what about the patriots? Where did they stand on yesterday's clown show that was not worthy of a hearing for a General?
John McCain stated that this was a McCarthy-like attack on the character of an American patriot.
Indeed, it was.
Fred Thompson accused Moveon of libel, and stated that the Democratic Party and every single Democratic candidate for President should repudiate the libel of this patriotic American.
We agree. And Mr. Thompson himself is a great American patriot as well.
When David H. Petraeus received his unanimous confirmation by the Congress, he also received the pledges from Congressional Democrats to 'give the surge a chance,' and to 'wait until the report is issued in September before passing judgment.'
It is clear after today's fiasco that the Democrats lied. They had no intention of supporting Petraeus or of giving the surge a chance to work, simply because to do so would ruin their most effective 2008 election tool, i.e., claiming that the War in Iraq is a big mistake and no progress is being made.
And the news today which shows a steep decline in the number of deaths and a dramatic increase in safety and security in sectors that once had been nothing more than death-traps, is not good news for those whose political fortune rests on the failure of America.
But of course, the act of selling oneself to the highest bidder is not an exercise in love for country but a race to see who gets the most cash at the end of the day. I am sure that the pimp will be most pleased.
The embarrassing buffoonery started when Democratic committee chair Ike Skelton refused to listen to GOP warnings about potential disruptions at the hands of pinko anti-war demonstrators.
And disrupt, they did.
But first, we were treated to the highly embarrassing episode of the dead microphones. Neither the General's nor the Ambassador's microphones would work. Perhaps, as one blogger put it, this was perfectly symbolic. The Democrats had no intention of actually listening to the report, since they had already begun attacking it before it was issued.
Once the microphones were working, it was time for the pinkos to protest.
Of course, Rep. Skelton was forced to put on his best 'I am highly offended' face and throw the bums out...but not before they were allowed to heckle General Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Skelton believed that these types of made-for-TV demonstrations would somehow help to show Americans that those awful, despicable, war-mongering symbols of America's shame in Iraq returned to Washington only to face a massive outpouring of spontaneous heckling and hatred.
Why else would he allow them entrance to the committee hearing given that he had already been warned that troublemakers were on the prowl?
Yet, it could well be that Skelton's plot backfired. Petraeus appeared calm, steady, and professional under intense pressure. His character had already been impugned before he was allowed to speak a word, yet the General conducted himself with utmost dignity and steadiness.
Congressional Republicans conducted themselves with dignity, patriotism, and maturity as their colleagues in the other Party threw a tantrum.
It was the Democrats who came off looking like desperate, eager opportunists, searching for everything--anything--they could get their hands on to try to discredit the General and the Ambassador.
In fact, they appeared almost as if they were prostitutes, having sold themselves to individuals and entities that have anything but America's best interests at heart.
For example, Moveon.org, the anti-war organization of the Democratic Party, referred to General Petraeus as 'General Betray-Us.' They even bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to say it.
In the ad Moveon also accused Petraeus of 'cooking the books,' lying about the figures, in order to present a positive picture.
Back down at the funny farm in Congress, Democrat Tom Lantos launched into a lengthy Petraeus-bash prior to the General's report, and stated forthrightly about the General's ensuing words, 'I don't buy a word of it.'
U.S. Representative and Republican Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter, R-California, responded to the attack by reminding the committee that Petraeus had been confirmed unanimously by Congress earlier this year, and that the proceedings should continue only with the stipulation that all would presume that Petraeus would offer 'a candid, independent assessment with integrity.'
Perhaps Hunter's stipulation was a bit too much for the ethically-challenged members of the Democratic leadership. Having sold themselves to the highest bidder, i.e., the anti-war, pinko nutcases of the extremist leftwing, these prostitutes would now sell the nation's soul to them as well.
At this hour, not a single Democratic candidate for President, nor any Democratic member of Congress has denounced, repudiated, or condemned Moveon.org for its blatant disrespect and character assassination of one of the America's most trusted military officials.
Former Democrat and Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman joined with John McCain in drafting a letter to be sent to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, calling on the Majority Leader to denounce and distance himself and his Party from the Moveon.org ad.
Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, refused.
Of course he refused. When you have sold out like a prostitute, you are forever indebted to the pimp. And in this case the pimp is somewhat elusive but encompasses the Democratic National Committee and those it needs to please in order to get the cash.
But what about the patriots? Where did they stand on yesterday's clown show that was not worthy of a hearing for a General?
John McCain stated that this was a McCarthy-like attack on the character of an American patriot.
Indeed, it was.
Fred Thompson accused Moveon of libel, and stated that the Democratic Party and every single Democratic candidate for President should repudiate the libel of this patriotic American.
We agree. And Mr. Thompson himself is a great American patriot as well.
When David H. Petraeus received his unanimous confirmation by the Congress, he also received the pledges from Congressional Democrats to 'give the surge a chance,' and to 'wait until the report is issued in September before passing judgment.'
It is clear after today's fiasco that the Democrats lied. They had no intention of supporting Petraeus or of giving the surge a chance to work, simply because to do so would ruin their most effective 2008 election tool, i.e., claiming that the War in Iraq is a big mistake and no progress is being made.
And the news today which shows a steep decline in the number of deaths and a dramatic increase in safety and security in sectors that once had been nothing more than death-traps, is not good news for those whose political fortune rests on the failure of America.
But of course, the act of selling oneself to the highest bidder is not an exercise in love for country but a race to see who gets the most cash at the end of the day. I am sure that the pimp will be most pleased.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Call Reveals Dems' Deep Division Over Iraq
The transcripts of a conference call between key Democrats and anti-war activists reveal deep divisions within the Party over Iraq. Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun Magazine, an anti-war activist, posted the transcripts of the conference call on the website of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, of which he is co-chair.
Each of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls insist they want our troops out of Iraq immediately. Yet each have played a careful game of semantics with issues such as when will the withdrawal of troops begin, how long will it take to get them out, and will the U.S. need to stay in the region indefinitely.
The result has been a hodge-podge of statements and innuendo without providing any substance to the highly emotionally tinged mantra of, 'We want our troops home now!'
Meanwhile, behind the scenes the anti-war stalwarts of the leftwing in the Democratic Party have expressed frustration with 'moderate Democrats' who seem to be holding up the process of an immediate troop withdrawal.
Anti-war activists outside the Party, such as Rabbi Lerner, are much more frustrated.
Hence, the transcripts of the conference call. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, is quoted in the transcripts as expressing frustration that moderate Democrats across the country are holding back on Iraq because they are certain they will be voted out of office if they come across as 'supporting defeat.'
When one anti-war activist speaks about 'peeling back Republican support for the War,' Woolsey interjects that 'perhaps you should be going after Democrats.'
Woolsey also refers to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rather low-keyed approach of late toward the War. Woolsey maintains that Pelosi is counting on the leftwing within the Party to push toward withdrawal.
Rabbi Lerner is not impressed, according to Politico's Mike Allen. In an interview with Allen, Lerner stated that the anti-war movement is not at all concerned with 'what may be in Nancy's heart' but whether or not she actively pursues a course of withdrawal of the troops.
Yet Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, defended Pelosi in the conference call, stating that she simply does not have the votes for a complete, immediate pull-out from Iraq. Like Woolsey, Moran expresses frustration with the number of Democrats who are afraid of making waves on the War.
As for Rabbi Lerner, the fact that a Democratic-controlled Congress has not followed through on its promises to end the War is a sore spot among peace activists and anti-war demonstrators. Lerner stated that the present Congress should be labeled, 'Profiles in Cowardice.'
'There is a great sense of frustration with the Democrats in Congress,' said Lerner, 'a sense almost of betrayal.'
Perhaps the most important nugget of wisdom contained in the comments Lerner had to offer is in this statement, 'People in the U.S. are opposed to the war, but they feel that they need to have a picture of what the world will look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world by leaving Iraq.'
It would seem that this is precisely the heart of the matter. Nobody likes war. But sometimes circumstances necessitate it. And the key issue is, what would the world look like if the world's only remaining superpower simply withdraws from the world by leaving Iraq?
General David H. Petraeus will present his long-awaited report on the troop surge today. When Petraeus was first appointed by President Bush to take command of the surge, much fanfare ensued in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Even Democrats were saying they had full confidence in Petraeus and were willing to 'give him a chance.'
Now that the first phase of the surge is complete and Petraeus is set to give his assessment to Congress, the question is, what will the Democrats do?
It would seem they have worked themselves into a corner. If they oppose Petraeus, once again they will come off looking like nothing more than second-rate political opportunists, given their resounding support in the Spring. If they support him, they will play into the hands of anti-war activists such as Lerner, who is already referring to the Democratic leadership as a lost cause.
Thus, the War in Iraq will continue to produce deep divisions among the Democrats.
Each of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls insist they want our troops out of Iraq immediately. Yet each have played a careful game of semantics with issues such as when will the withdrawal of troops begin, how long will it take to get them out, and will the U.S. need to stay in the region indefinitely.
The result has been a hodge-podge of statements and innuendo without providing any substance to the highly emotionally tinged mantra of, 'We want our troops home now!'
Meanwhile, behind the scenes the anti-war stalwarts of the leftwing in the Democratic Party have expressed frustration with 'moderate Democrats' who seem to be holding up the process of an immediate troop withdrawal.
Anti-war activists outside the Party, such as Rabbi Lerner, are much more frustrated.
Hence, the transcripts of the conference call. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, is quoted in the transcripts as expressing frustration that moderate Democrats across the country are holding back on Iraq because they are certain they will be voted out of office if they come across as 'supporting defeat.'
When one anti-war activist speaks about 'peeling back Republican support for the War,' Woolsey interjects that 'perhaps you should be going after Democrats.'
Woolsey also refers to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rather low-keyed approach of late toward the War. Woolsey maintains that Pelosi is counting on the leftwing within the Party to push toward withdrawal.
Rabbi Lerner is not impressed, according to Politico's Mike Allen. In an interview with Allen, Lerner stated that the anti-war movement is not at all concerned with 'what may be in Nancy's heart' but whether or not she actively pursues a course of withdrawal of the troops.
Yet Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, defended Pelosi in the conference call, stating that she simply does not have the votes for a complete, immediate pull-out from Iraq. Like Woolsey, Moran expresses frustration with the number of Democrats who are afraid of making waves on the War.
As for Rabbi Lerner, the fact that a Democratic-controlled Congress has not followed through on its promises to end the War is a sore spot among peace activists and anti-war demonstrators. Lerner stated that the present Congress should be labeled, 'Profiles in Cowardice.'
'There is a great sense of frustration with the Democrats in Congress,' said Lerner, 'a sense almost of betrayal.'
Perhaps the most important nugget of wisdom contained in the comments Lerner had to offer is in this statement, 'People in the U.S. are opposed to the war, but they feel that they need to have a picture of what the world will look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world by leaving Iraq.'
It would seem that this is precisely the heart of the matter. Nobody likes war. But sometimes circumstances necessitate it. And the key issue is, what would the world look like if the world's only remaining superpower simply withdraws from the world by leaving Iraq?
General David H. Petraeus will present his long-awaited report on the troop surge today. When Petraeus was first appointed by President Bush to take command of the surge, much fanfare ensued in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Even Democrats were saying they had full confidence in Petraeus and were willing to 'give him a chance.'
Now that the first phase of the surge is complete and Petraeus is set to give his assessment to Congress, the question is, what will the Democrats do?
It would seem they have worked themselves into a corner. If they oppose Petraeus, once again they will come off looking like nothing more than second-rate political opportunists, given their resounding support in the Spring. If they support him, they will play into the hands of anti-war activists such as Lerner, who is already referring to the Democratic leadership as a lost cause.
Thus, the War in Iraq will continue to produce deep divisions among the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)