The Perfect Storm

Rarely do you see The Daily Kos, Michelle Malkin, Red State, and U.S. News and World Report agree on something. So when all of these are arguing against a Democrat sponsored bailout of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), we should probably take a minute to hear them out.


This started with a commitment by President Obama to send $108 Billion to the IMF. Now Rahm Emanual and Nancy Pelosi are trying to bully House Democrats into voting for a war funding bill with an amendment attached to provide $108 Billion to bail out the International Monetary Fund. Nancy Pelosi wants Democrats to sneak this bailout through becuase no one believes a bill bailing out the IMF could make it on it's own. The American public has reached their limit of bailouts. Strategists on both sides are predicting losses for elected officials voting for bailouts in 2010.


The funny part is the coalition lining up to defeat this. Red State has listed the names and contact info for the Democrats most likely to be flipped. Eric at Red State is encouraging everyone to call them. Peter Roff writing at U.S. News and World Report has listed the top ten reasons to vote against this. The Daily Kos has gone so far as to write supportive profiles of Democrats likely to defeat those Democrats who might vote for this bill.


In this age of new politics, Republicans and Democrats can unite together to tell Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi Americans are tired of bailouts. We are tired of bailouts, and we don't want to bailout European banks. If Pelosi thinks this is important, let her put this bailout on a bill by itself. If she can't get the votes for it by iteslf, don't try to sneak it through.

I Support AIG Employees

“The vote by Congress to tax Wall Street bonuses out of existence was economic populism run amok. This was legislating by rage, fear, and panic.”

-New York Daily News Editorial

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of the U. S. Congress. Our Congress voted to write a law that would retro-actively attack a small group of private citizens. These are the very tactics our country fought against in the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers specifically outlawed this behavior in the U. S. Constitution. The thugs in Congress have decided they don’t have to play by the rules of the Constitution (assuming any of them still know where to find it to read). Our Congress has ignored the example of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and instead have chosen the example of King George during the 1700’s. One Republican even joked that these employees should kill themselves. Every single Republican and Democrat that voted to tax AIG employees at 90% yesterday should be forced to leave in disgrace.

According to varying news accounts, AIG paid out some $165 million in bonuses to between 73 and 463 employees. Most stories report the 73 number; I have seen one that reported the 463 employees. Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd want these people burned at the stake in the public square. Why? Because they had a contract with AIG, and they were arrogant enough to believe their employer would honor it. The employees fulfilled their end of the bargain, and expected AIG to pay them for it. I don’t know how many of you go to work and give your employer the option of paying you. I expect to be paid when I go to work and I know Congress expects the taxpayer to pay them.

Pelosi and other Democrats have stoked popular anger to the point that AIG employees are receiving death threats. According to the International Herald Tribune, “The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, was planning a bus tour Saturday of A.I.G. executives’ homes, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.” The Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, in conjunction with some Republicans, and with the approval of President Obama are trying to steal money from private citizens simply because they have stoked public opinion against these people. Our elected representatives should be ashamed of what they have done, and we as citizens should be embarrassed by their behavior. Should anything ill happen to these employees, the blood will be squarely on the hands of Pelosi, Frank, President Obama, and their partners in this, “…populism run amok.”

More Surprises from the "Stimulus" Package

If you are supporting the Democratic Spending Bill before the House and Senate, perhaps this paragraph from Bloomberg (authors Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry) will make you think twice:


The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.


I hope you read that very carefully. The money involved would pay off more than 90 percent of all home mortgages, not just troubled ones. I have written a number of times regarding the insane cost of these plans. However, another Bloomberg author has found another reason to oppose these plans. Betsy McCaughey explains that the stimulus package, as currently debated, will usher in a new world for you and your health care.


In her article, Mrs McCaughey references the exact page number each of these provisions are contained in. For brevity, I have not reproduced the page number. To start with, the stimulus package with digitize your medical records. This sounds innocent enough and is even billed as a way to save your life if you are traveling and need medical attention. The doctor will have access to your medical records via a federal website. Assuming you are confident these records are secure, and there can't be any breach at the federal level, we will continue on. If this worries you, don't read any more because the rest of this will terrify you.


Now that your medical records belong to the federal government, a new entity called "The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will begin reviewing your files and the treatment your doctor provides to ensure that your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate. If your doctor isn't, and is trying to treat your specific circumstance, or is trying some sort of experimental treatment on you (even with your consent) then your doctor can face very serious repercussions. The exact language of the bill is vague on this, and will create a separate federal group to decide what that penalty is. According to Mrs. McCaughey, most of these recommendations are out of recent Health and Human Services nominee, and non-tax paying Democrat, Tom Daschle's book. In his book, Daschle says our health care should be more like Europeans. We should slow down the development of new drugs and experimental treatments because they simply cost to much. We should also be willing to accept "hopeless diagnosis". In laymen terms this means if it costs to much to keep you alive, the doctor shouldn't be doing it. To quote the article:


Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).


If the stimulus package is signed into law, then a person and council named by the Democrats will decide what treatments you should or shouldn't receive, will be able to penalize your doctor or hospital for not following those treatments, and will decide how much it should cost to keep you or a loved one alive. If it costs too much you shouldn't get the treatment.


Consider this fact from Mrs. McCaughey: the bill provides more funding for these provisions than for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marince Corp combined.


You may believe this new Health Care system should be implemented. I think it will be a dark day in our country if it ever happens. I also believe our country could be permanently damaged by this. However, either way, it should outrage all Americans that the Democrats and President Obama are trying to sneak this in. This shows that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama know the American people will not support it. The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. If they really thought Americans wanted this, they would create a separate bill and pass it. The Republicans would be powerless to stop it.

I encourage you to contact your Senator and tell them to vote against this. Ask them to defend these Health Care provisions to you and explain why they support them. If you don't know their contact info, look it up here. Don't let them sneak in legislation that could affect how, and how long, you and your loved ones live.

The Pelosi - Obama “Non-Stimulus” Plan

As of this writing, Democrats in the House have passed a $813 Million spending bill. Democrats in the House and President Obama have all called this an economic stimulus plan. In truth, it is a runaway spending plan with very little in it to actually stimulate the economy. I saw two quotes today that really scared me. The first one from the Heritage Foundation Website:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." – FDR Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

The second in today's issue of USA Today:

House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis., said the goal is to act now and address problems later. During the Depression, he said, President Franklin Roosevelt "tried lots of things. We'll do the same thing."

The two quotes together don't give me confidence that Democrats know what they are doing right now. I really don't like the "act now and address problems later" part either. Obama campaigned on a new kind of politics in Washington. However, what we see is a plan that we are being told will stimulate the economy that includes:

--$20 Billion to increase Food Stamps

--$18.5 Billion for energy efficiency

--$20 Billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools

--$30 Billion for highway construction (out of almost $1 Trillion in spending)

This is without looking at the list of multi-million dollar line items that go to special interest groups such as ACORN, STD education and prevention programs at the CDC, national endowment for the arts, assorted federal "green" jobs, and of course the Smithsonian and the national mall. For more on these non-stimulating line items, see here, here, or here. The last link is from the National Review Online and is probably the best discussion of the plan anywhere. Are the programs in this bill worth funding? Maybe, maybe not. But they don't create jobs, and Democrats shouldn't call this a stimulus bill. An extra $650 million is going to help people convert their TV's to the new digital format. Approximately $80 Billion is going to states that can't balance their budget already.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are telling us that this is urgent. We must pass this right now. American jobs are at stake! However, the Congressional Budget Office is saying that less than half of the "stimulating" part of the bill, the $30 Billion in highway construction money, would get into the economy over the next four years! Only $26 Billion of the $274 Billion in infrastructure spending would be used by next fall! The American public is being sold a bill of goods with this plan. This massive spending plan won't stimulate the economy, and only 64 % of the entire bill will reach the economy over the next four years!

The only bright side to this is that Republicans (and 11 Democrats) voted against this bill today. Succeed or fail, this bill is 100% Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. It will fail, and I am afraid it will take part of the country with it.

Throwing More Money Away

As our government continues to spend money like it grows on trees, I continue to believe that our elected officials have no idea what they are doing. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and many Republicans seem to believe if the government throws enough money at a problem the problem will suddenly be solved. They aren't changing any of the laws that got us into this crisis, and they aren't asking business to change any of the practices that got them into this problem either.

The latest chapter in this tragedy started playing today. Treasury Secretary Paulson today said that the original, authorized, use of the $700 Billion bailout wasn't working fast enough. No the Treasury Secretary is going to focus on, "…direct capital injections into the struggling financial firms." The government is just going to buy pieces of these firms. This is the same Federal Reserve that refuses to identify how it has spent $2 Trillion in emergency loans already. Does anyone really feel comfortable with our government spending this money as fast as it can without any real accountability? The government does two things well: make war and waste money.

Today I saw an article where a number of different industries are going after the big bailout. The automakers are getting the biggest play on the news, but other groups like credit card companies, auto dealers, boat dealers, and several Hispanic business groups. The Hispanic business groups want to manage the homes the government might own as a part of this bail out. Pelosi and Reid are talking about using part of the bill for the auto industry, and there are signs the details of qualifying for help under the bailout may change under an Obama administration. This coupled with Paulson's desire to spend the money in a different way is probably the worst thing our government can do right now. They are creating more uncertainty. The Great Depression went on as long as it did because business had no idea what FDR was going to do next.

So far, there have been no talk of changing any of the practices that got us here, or making any changes in the way our government does business with financial institutions. If we really want to improve the economy, the government will stop issuing bailouts, and start cutting taxes. We will stop adding clauses and requirements to the auto industry, and start cutting the requirements we have on their manufacturing.

There is some small hope. Some Republicans are against more bailouts. Richard Shelby (Republican Senator from Alabama) has said, "I do not support the use of U. S. Taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers…" Amen.

Congress and Their 5 Week Vacation

Pack 04 has once again taken me up on an offer to write on here. Here is his guest post, hope you enjoy!

It has probably been beaten to death by now but why not pile on:

Sen. Tom Coburn: We’re fighting hard. You need to be fighting hard.

Sen. Jeff Sessions: If the government is not functioning, it’s difficult to know how to help them.

Rep. Chris Shays: If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages.

Sen. John Warner: An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today.

Sen. John Kerry: An Iraqi Parliament that spends July and August sitting around a swimming pool while their country descends into further unrest.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: While our troops are in harm's way there and the need for us to see strong political change, it seems they've left before their work was completed.

Words spoken around the time the Iraqi government was planning a 2 month vacation last summer. Last Friday by a vote of 213-212 the House decided to take a break and go on vacation. I suppose nothing bad is going on in America. Energy prices are high, we are in a “recession,” people cannot afford to get medicine or healthcare, the war in Iraqi is still going on. I guess these issues we were led to believe are not as critical as thought. Those are all things the House can do something about. Maybe they are just going to telecommute.

They are going on vacation using/spending money that they receive from our tax money. The Speaker of the House gets $217,400 a year, $169,300 a year for the rest of them. They also get a cost of living increase. I work for state government, most likely my promised cost of living increase is going away because the state has not collected as much. Do you think they will decide not to give themselves a cost of living increase?

They are going on vacation and my Dad who lives hours away from me had to cancel his vacation to see me because he cannot afford to travel down here. I get to see him very little every year. I cannot afford to get up to see him either for the same reason. Let’s look big picture, this month troops are going to die, people are going to get sick and stay sick because of lack of affordable health care, kids are going to go hungry because people had to choose between buying food or driving to work.

The evil republicans and a few democratic voted to stay to solve problems. They lost but I am proud of them. What do the republicans need to do now? Stay in DC and work. Send photographers out to take pictures of the Democrats on the beach. Run ads showing who is doing what. Win in November.

Number One Issue in ’08: Gas Prices?

I have written a few times on this site about energy and gas prices being an issue this Presidential Election season. I am now convinced that it could be a very big factor in not just the Presidential election, but Congressional and Senatorial campaigns as well. Gas prices hit an all time high today for our national average at $4.11 a gallon. The Democrats campaigned on lowering energy and gas prices back in 2006. So far, they haven't done anything about it. $4.00 appears to be the point when most Americans begin to lose patience with the "environmental movement" and decide it is time to do something. A few days ago I saw a t-shirt selling on ebay. The shirt had a picture of a polar bear and said, "I'd drill through his A—, for cheaper gas!" I have always been amazed at the good PR the Polar Bear gets. Let's not forget that this is an animal known to stalk and kill people, and routinely eats seals. Why do you think the Polar Bear hangs out on ice?

I digress. Many Republicans are pushing hard to at least get a floor vote on off shore drilling. Pelosi and Reid are both playing this down. Neither of them wants a roll call vote with their members voting against off shore drilling come November. I'm not a professional campaign manager, but I bet a very effective add could be made with a Representative or Senator voting against drilling, and gas prices at $5 in November. Pelosi has said she won't allow any energy bills to see the floor for fear that an off shore drilling vote could come up. Reid has said he doesn't think anything will happen in the Senate, but Republicans and some Democrats don't agree with him.

There is a move in the Senate to create a "Gang of 14" style compromise. According to the Politico, this would show up in a bill that opens up the coast for drilling, but includes some conservation or alternative fuel measures. Depending on the language, there is a real opportunity to get some meaningful legislation passed here. There are already Democrats committing their support to this bill. If it passed in the Senate, there would be more pressure on the House to do something.

I called a U. S. Representative’s office today to discuss off shore drilling with them. I called as a simple voter, and not in any way associated with this blog. While discussing the merits of off shore drilling, and discussing alternative energy such as bio-fuels and nuclear power, the staffer I talked to wouldn’t commit one way or another for the Representative they worked for. At one point in the conversation, the aide even asked not to be quoted. I have never been told from an elected officials office that they didn't want to be quoted while talking to a voter. I took one very clear message from this: This particular Representative isn’t willing to commit one way or another on this issue. If that is true, then Reid and Pelosi may be in for a loss as Democrats work to craft a bill with Republicans against the Democratic Leadership’s wishes. This could make this years Congressional and Senatorial campaigns much closer than the conventional wisdom.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?

Turkey Guilty (100 years ago)!

The Democratic leadership in the House is trying its best to disrupt our supply lines to Iraq and to alienate our largest Muslim alley in the Middle East. Why you may ask? They are doing it under the cover of addressing atrocities that are almost 100 years old.

In the early 1900’s Turkey (and much of the Middle East) was part of the Ottoman Empire. Prior to and during World War I, there was a systematic attempt to exterminate Christian Armenians by the Muslim government. Depending on the source, estimates range from 300,000 to 2 million Armenians brutally killed during this time period. Many scholars seem to take 1.5 million as the agreed upon figure. Many consider this genocide second only to the Holocaust. From 1919 to 1920, there were a series of military tribunals that sentenced many of the leaders responsible for the atrocities against the Armenians to death. Most of these sentences were reached while the defendant was in hiding and unreachable.

Currently Democrats, with some Republican help, have been trying to pass a resolution in the House condemning this activity and labeling it “Genocide”. The current government in Turkey has acknowledged that crimes were committed, but has refused to label it as genocide. Their arguments seem to be regarding the precise definition of “genocide”. Speaker Pelosi is trying to bring a House resolution to the floor for a full vote that would condemn Turkey for something that happened almost 100 years ago. Turkey has found this insulting and has recalled its’ ambassador to the United States.

While I agree that the genocide of the Armenians was terrible, and is something we should study to learn from, I question the motives behind the Democrats who want to bring this to the floor. Condoleezza Rice and eight other former Secretaries of State have sent a letter to the House asking for members to vote against this resolution. The Bush administration believes that Turkey may have two reactions to a condemnation by us, their ally. These reactions are in addition to the Democrats insulting our largest Muslim alley if the resolution were to pass. First, Turkey may begin sending troops into the Kurdish area of Iraq. The Bush administration has been actively working with Turkey to keep them from entering into Iraq. If Turkey were to send troops into Northern Iraq, it could hurt the success we have had in that area.

Secondly, and I think the real reason Democrats are behind this measure, Turkey may stop allowing our military to use their airspace and country as a supply route for our troops in Iraq. The Pentagon is already working on logistics in the event that happens. We currently have major supplies (including new, more heavily armed transports) coming to our troops through Turkey. If that supply route is disrupted, it wouldn’t be good for our soldiers, and for our war effort.

I can’t imagine a reason that House Democrats are pushing this issue at this time, other than to intentionally hurt our war effort. Many Republicans and Democrats have decided to vote against this issue after hearing about the repercussions. However, Speaker Pelosi and House Leader Steny Hoyer still intend to have a full vote on the measure by the end of the year. If the Democratic Leadership of the House is so committed to having this vote, are they also committed to doing whatever they can to hurt our war effort in Iraq? Do they really despise the President so much they would sacrifice our soldiers, and our nation, to simply spite the President?

Democrats in a Quagmire

CNN has an interesting article on their website entitled Democrats struggle with next step on Iraq. After passing a non-binding resolution in the House, and working the following weekend in the Senate without passing the resolution, the Democrats seem to be a little confused on how to proceed.

This week, Rep Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania began discussing legislation he would like to use to prevent any reinforcements from going to Iraq. He has said he will tie readiness requirements to funding bills for troop deployments. At face value this might not be a bad idea. Murtha would put requirements on how much training, equipment, and time away from Iraq any particular unit needed before it could be deployed to Iraq. Murtha has said the limits he has sent are unachievable, and would prevent any troops from being deployed to Iraq. Murtha’s message would be loud and clear: Troops, you are on your own.

However, the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are unsure how they want to proceed. Speaker Pelosi has been non-committal on Murtha’s proposal, but is quoted in the AP article as saying, “Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.” Senate Majority Leader Reid wishes to table the discussion on Iraq entirely. He plans on taking up debate on the 9/11 commission. Discussing when the Senate might pick up the debate on Iraq, Reid said, “Iraq is going to be there – it’s just a question of when we get back to it.” The article also quotes him as saying it would be days and not weeks before the Senate came back to the issue. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) stated that he understood there were some that thought the Senate should continue the debate on Iraq. However, both Durbin and Reid think they can implement all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations quickly. Because of the emotional nature of some of the recommendations, and the fact that they haven’t been implemented yet, it might take some time before the Senate could agree on what recommendations to implement.

The article illustrates that the Democratic leadership is confused and unsure when it comes to the Iraq debate. The Senate is moving on to other things. Pelosi and Reid seem to be on different pages on what to do next. All of this illustrates one point: The Founding Fathers were right to give power to carry out a war to the Commander in Chief and not to the Congress. If the Congress can’t even make up its collective minds on how to proceed with the debate, how are they possibly going to manage a war requiring quick decisions? Reid and Pelosi may want to direct how we proceed in Iraq, but the Constitution says only Bush gets to make that decision. I think the way Congress has acted over the last few weeks illustrates why the Constitution decided one person could make decisions quicker than a collection of hundreds.

What if we win?

Could the President’s new path forward be working? There are some early signs of success, but it is still too early to tell. There have been some significant clashes between US forces and insurgents, militia leaders have fled or gone underground, and the Iraqi government is saying that there has been a decline in the number of dead bodies the police forces are finding each day. At the same time, the terrorist are now using their own form of a dirty bomb.

I think whether you believe in the surge or not, most people hope and pray it works. Americans want success in Iraq. Americans don’t like to loose. Based on the comments from many Democrats, I wonder if the Democratic Party wants success, or is hoping for a defeat. The Democrats have announced they are going to try to prevent reinforcements from going to Iraq; and they are going to try to prevent the President from doing what he thinks he needs to do to win. To me, that doesn’t sound like the Democrats want a victory in Iraq. They either want defeat, or at best, just want us to leave. Which brings the question, what happens to those Democrats and Republicans who are against the war right now, and against the President’s new path, if we do win?

Most Democrats and a few Republicans seem to be betting their political career on a failed war in Iraq. I believe these elected officials are doing everything in their power (knowingly or not) to bring about the same end to this war that Vietnam suffered from. The US didn’t loose in Vietnam, we gave up. In Iraq, we can win, but we will have to stay with it, probably into the next presidency.

If the President’s policy works, then those Democrats like Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi who are doing everything they can to try and bleed our forces dry will be in a tough spot. In an interview this week, Vice President Cheney pointed out we have had successes in Iraq. We have removed Saddam from power. We have had elections in Iraq. There is a constitution written in Iraq. Saddam had his day in court, and was executed. If we are able to defeat the terrorist and insurgents now battling us in Iraq, and leave Iraq with the democratically elected government able to handle its own affairs, then we will have done something incredible in Iraq. The Democrats (and some Republicans) will be on the record saying there is no way for the surge to work. They will be on the record saying we should run away from Iraq. Will that affect their re-election chances? Will it affect the chances of a Democratic Nominee winning the White House in 2008 or even in 2012?

The Ried / Pelosi Doctrine

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush today. There has been a lot of speculation lately that Bush is ready to increase troop levels to coincide with a change in policy in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid sent a letter to Bush today begging him not to do it. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want to see a “…phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months…” In case some might misconstrue the Reid / Pelosi doctrine, they sum it up in the letter, “In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq…”

Since a victory in Iraq does not figure into the Reid / Pelosi first 100 hours of power, they are not willing to put any commitment into Iraq, and are ready to see us abandon Iraq. President Bush has been taking time to review the Iraq Study Group report, and other assorted reports from his different departments. The AP reported today that Bush’s strategy, “…is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war.” The Reid / Pelosi doctrine does not talk about victory or winning in Iraq. Instead, this doctrine wants to find an “end to the war in Iraq” or “[a] way forward”, maybe a “sustainable political settlement”, or at best, to “bring the war to a close.” The reports indicate that Bush has much grander things in mind: winning.

According to the AP, Bush is replacing the top two military leaders in Iraq. General Abizaid is to be replaced with Admiral William Fallon while General George Casey is to be replaced by Lt. General David Petraeus. Both of these military leaders have been pursuing the war on terror. Admiral Fallon has been the top US commander in the Pacific. He has gone on the record arguing that we are in a different type of fight. Admiral Fallon argues that our enemies will never defeat us in a “force versus force” type of fight. Instead, our enemies are currently using suicide bombers, IED’s, and the internet to try and sap our will to fight. Lt. Gen Petraeus was in charge of rebuilding Mosul with the 101st Airborne and in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi Army and police forces. His actions in Mosul and with the Iraqi Army and police have received a lot of praise.

In addition to the military shakeup, the AP reports the Bush is changing the make up of the ambassadors to Iraq and the UN, and will be putting Vice Admiral Mike McConnell in charge of Intelligence. These may or may not be the right moves to make. However, Bush is trying to put our troops in a position to win the war in Iraq. The Reid / Pelosi doctrine would have them come home in defeat, and give a victory to our enemies.

New article up at Big Bazoo

The people at Bigbazoo posted a guest blog of mine. I wrote an article on some of the failures of Speaker-elect Pelosi. Go check it out here, and leave a comment to let them know what you think.