Did the 9/11 Commission receive all the documents it requested? Davis Releases Berger Report
January 9, 2007
By David Marin (202)225-5074
Washington, D.C. – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) released the following statement today on a committee report that sheds important new light on Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National Archives. The report makes it clear that the full extent of Mr. Berger’s document removal can never be known, and consequently the Department of Justice could not assure the 9/11 Commission that it received all responsive documents to which Mr. Berger had access.
“My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.
“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.
“We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.
“Mr. Berger’s review of documents did not conform to the usual requirements for reviewing classified documents in a secure facility and under strict supervision. The Archives staff’s failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort.
“The compromised law enforcement effort contributes to reduced confidence that the 9/11 Commission received all the documents it requested. The execution of a search warrant before Mr. Berger knew there was an investigation would have either located additional documents or enhanced confidence that he stole no others than those he admitted to taking.
“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’
“The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.”
Staff Report- Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions PDF
Berger
Clinton
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
50,000 more US troops can save Iraq
By John Keegan
President George W. Bush is about to launch a final push in Iraq with a large reinforcement of American troops in the hope of crushing the insurgency before America embarks on a large-scale withdrawal of force from the country.
The size of the force is commonly set at about 40,000-50,000 troops. The aim of this surge will be to inflict severe damage and loss on the problem-making elements within Iraq, including both Shia and Sunni militias, and to increase training of the Iraqi security forces under American supervision.
The arguments against the surge are that it might exacerbate the violence without deterring the perpetrators from persisting in their attacks and that it might result in a sharp increase in American casualties with no observable gain. The arguments for trying a surge are that it is defeatist to concentrate on withdrawal from Iraq without attempting a final effort to make military force work.
A major consideration is where the troops are to be found. Some formations of the regular American army and some national guard formations remain within the United States, but much has already been deployed to Iraq and it may prove difficult to find the necessary soldiers. Also problematic is the task of transporting them and their equipment to the fighting zones. How are they to be moved and where are they to be based?
Despite the deployment to Iraq already made and the number of units and formations elsewhere in the world (specifically in Afghanistan), the US Army and Marine Corps still maintain a large deployable reserve in America. There should be no difficulty in finding a regular or national guard army division or a marine division.
Its equipment could be transported in the designated huge transport vehicles of its C-lift reserve fleet, while the personnel could be flown by the vast fleet of C-5 transports. The obvious point of entry is Kuwait, from which the invasion of Iraq was launched in 2003.
Military logic requires that any reinforcements should contain a sizeable number of armoured vehicles. Insurgents, though they have had some success in attacking tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, are not properly equipped to resist a heavily armoured enemy.
The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.
Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.
The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.
The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias.
In any case, the sending of such force will be a necessary preliminary to any reduction in strength, since it would be necessary to cover the withdrawal. Retreat is a complicated operation of war which paradoxically always involves far more troops if it is to be brought off successfully. The reason for that is that the spectacle of withdrawal tempts the enemy to interpret the time of withdrawal as an indication of weakness, and so risks infliction of passing shots and the launching of farewell attacks. It is vastly important to have additional troops on hand at such a time.
The surge reinforcements may therefore have a dual purpose to cover the reduction and also to deal final blows at the source of the disorder prior to departure. American commanders certainly will not wish to leave Iraq, tail between legs. We may therefore confidently expect to see the number of American troops in the theatre increase suddenly from 150,000 to 200,000, if only for a short time.
An important side effect of the surge for which Western leaders will hope is that it will increase the size and capability of Iraqi security forces, which it will be vital to include in the operation.
For it is upon them that the stability of Iraq and its elected government will depend when the size of Western involvement is reduced.
President George W. Bush is about to launch a final push in Iraq with a large reinforcement of American troops in the hope of crushing the insurgency before America embarks on a large-scale withdrawal of force from the country.
The size of the force is commonly set at about 40,000-50,000 troops. The aim of this surge will be to inflict severe damage and loss on the problem-making elements within Iraq, including both Shia and Sunni militias, and to increase training of the Iraqi security forces under American supervision.
The arguments against the surge are that it might exacerbate the violence without deterring the perpetrators from persisting in their attacks and that it might result in a sharp increase in American casualties with no observable gain. The arguments for trying a surge are that it is defeatist to concentrate on withdrawal from Iraq without attempting a final effort to make military force work.
A major consideration is where the troops are to be found. Some formations of the regular American army and some national guard formations remain within the United States, but much has already been deployed to Iraq and it may prove difficult to find the necessary soldiers. Also problematic is the task of transporting them and their equipment to the fighting zones. How are they to be moved and where are they to be based?
Despite the deployment to Iraq already made and the number of units and formations elsewhere in the world (specifically in Afghanistan), the US Army and Marine Corps still maintain a large deployable reserve in America. There should be no difficulty in finding a regular or national guard army division or a marine division.
Its equipment could be transported in the designated huge transport vehicles of its C-lift reserve fleet, while the personnel could be flown by the vast fleet of C-5 transports. The obvious point of entry is Kuwait, from which the invasion of Iraq was launched in 2003.
Military logic requires that any reinforcements should contain a sizeable number of armoured vehicles. Insurgents, though they have had some success in attacking tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, are not properly equipped to resist a heavily armoured enemy.
The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.
Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.
The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.
The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias.
In any case, the sending of such force will be a necessary preliminary to any reduction in strength, since it would be necessary to cover the withdrawal. Retreat is a complicated operation of war which paradoxically always involves far more troops if it is to be brought off successfully. The reason for that is that the spectacle of withdrawal tempts the enemy to interpret the time of withdrawal as an indication of weakness, and so risks infliction of passing shots and the launching of farewell attacks. It is vastly important to have additional troops on hand at such a time.
The surge reinforcements may therefore have a dual purpose to cover the reduction and also to deal final blows at the source of the disorder prior to departure. American commanders certainly will not wish to leave Iraq, tail between legs. We may therefore confidently expect to see the number of American troops in the theatre increase suddenly from 150,000 to 200,000, if only for a short time.
An important side effect of the surge for which Western leaders will hope is that it will increase the size and capability of Iraqi security forces, which it will be vital to include in the operation.
For it is upon them that the stability of Iraq and its elected government will depend when the size of Western involvement is reduced.
Mexico moves to protect illegal immigrants
Mexicans planning to cross the border into the United States will be issued with satellite tracking devices by their Government to make sure they arrive safely.
It is estimated more than 1 million people cross the border illegally into the US each year.
How many of them die in the dangerous four-day trip across the desert is not known but it is believed to be in the hundreds.
Now, those who get lost or fall behind will activate a hand-held satellite device, alerting frontier police on either side of the border.
Mexican authorities expect to hand out about 200,000 devices in the coming year.
It is the latest development in an issue currently straining US-Mexican relations.
In October, US President George W Bush signed off on legislation to fence about a third of the border, a move that was condemned by Mexico.
Illegal Immigrants
It is estimated more than 1 million people cross the border illegally into the US each year.
How many of them die in the dangerous four-day trip across the desert is not known but it is believed to be in the hundreds.
Now, those who get lost or fall behind will activate a hand-held satellite device, alerting frontier police on either side of the border.
Mexican authorities expect to hand out about 200,000 devices in the coming year.
It is the latest development in an issue currently straining US-Mexican relations.
In October, US President George W Bush signed off on legislation to fence about a third of the border, a move that was condemned by Mexico.
Illegal Immigrants
Saturday, January 06, 2007
ON THIS DAY in
1941 - US President Franklin D Roosevelt defines the American goal of 'four freedoms': Freedom of Speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
3 of which todays Democrats work whole heartidly against....
3 of which todays Democrats work whole heartidly against....
Democratic Leaders Oppose More U.S. Troops in Iraq (Update)
By Laura Litvan
Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they won't support any proposal by President George W. Bush to increase U.S. forces in Iraq, an option he is considering as he works on a new plan to quell sectarian violence there. Blah Blah what else is new
``Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,'' Gee such great incite from two Brilliant Military Minds the top two congressional Democratic leaders wrote in a letter to Bush. ``It would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.'' No it will give them the Time and Security to accomplish that goal
Senate Majority Whip Richard(Turbin)Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said Democrats are considering options to limit the U.S. involvement, including setting a cap on U.S. troop levels and requiring Bush to obtain congressional approval to exceed it. That is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. Congress has NO authority to set troop limits.
The letter from Pelosi and Reid comes as Bush prepares to lay out a plan next week for new U.S. steps in Iraq and signals Democrats' efforts to thwart any troop increase or exact a political price if Bush orders one. They would rather see us LOSE than win, all in the name of Politics
``There will be the eyes of the American people on everything the president does in Iraq, for a change,'' Reid told reporters today. Those eyes are also on you Harry, the people are watching if your going to jepordize our LIVES for what you think will be a political gain ``The people of this country no longer support this war in Iraq.'' Not True, but they want to win
Among the options Bush is considering is boosting the number of U.S. forces in Iraq, now at about 140,000. Proposals for an increase range from 8,000 more troops to as many as 30,000. The president hasn't indicated which direction he favors.
``I will want to make sure that the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished,'' Bush said this week. Sounds pretty clear to me
Bush Meets With Senators
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush agrees with Pelosi that the U.S. must remain aggressive on the diplomatic front and that Iraq needs a sustainable political settlement and must address sectarian problems.
``The president, for the most part, is listening to people, is listening to ideas,'' he said. ``There will be opportunities for Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to speak with the president on this.'' But not to DICTATE TERMS OF OUR SURRENDER
Bush discussed the war at the White House today with about a dozen senators from both parties, including Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and Republicans Trent Lott of Mississippi, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Idaho.
Obama said he wouldn't support a troop increase. ``I said definitively that I thought it was a bad idea,'' he told reporters after the meeting. Another IDIOT that thinks you can stop bombs and bullets by retreating
`Somber' Meeting
Craig said the mood at the meeting was somber. ``This was not a meeting with lots of smiles,'' he said.
Pelosi, a critic of the war since its inception in March 2003, was elected Speaker of the House yesterday as Democrats took control of the House and Senate. Earlier today, she said that adding more troops would be an escalation of the war that rejects a call from voters in November for a change in direction. Thats not what the voters said. Because that is NOT what you ran on. You ran on NO positions Nancy except hate and want for power.
``I don't support it,'' Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in an interview. ``It's an escalation of the war, and the American people spoke very clearly in the election that if there is any place that they want a new direction, it was in Iraq.'' BULLSHIT
Reid, installed yesterday in the Senate's most powerful post, said Dec. 17 on ABC's ``This Week'' program that he would support a surge of American forces for two or three months as part of a larger plan to withdraw combat troops by 2008.
The letter he and Pelosi sent Bush today said: ``Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, CUT AND RUN while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. Where we going to redeploy to? Okinowa?
Changed His Mind
Reid's action was surprising ``because a week ago Senator Reid was quoted as saying he would support a surge if there was some plan for withdrawal,'' said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in an interview on ``Political Capital with Al Hunt'' to air this weekend on Bloomberg Television. ``This is sort of a 180 in a very short period of time.'' You got Balls McCain, you are large part of the reason the Republican base didn't come out and vote in the first place.
Reid told reporters he changed his mind after learning that U.S. commanders on the ground didn't think a surge would work. Name Two who are NOT retired
``Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed,'' Pelosi and Reid wrote Bush. When?
``After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close,'' they said. When did the Death Count reach over 10,000 last I looked it was barely 3000.
``There is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution,'' they wrote. Yeah and then we can all meet with the Islamofacists and sing Koom Bi Ah
Hearings Scheduled Witch Hunts To Begin
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today released a tentative schedule for four weeks of Iraq hearings beginning with a closed intelligence briefing Jan. 9. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to testify Jan. 11 ahead of a trip to the Middle East.
The committee will ``to seek an answer to the question currently dominating the national debate: what options remain to secure America's interests in Iraq? Where do we go from here?'' said Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the committee. Ah yes the most inteligent member of Congress. One option is all there is Joe WIN and cutting and retreating will not give us a victory, it will give us terrorist attacks in OUR streets.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace will testify before the House Armed Services Committee Jan. 11 and the following day before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committees said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said today he wants to learn more about the president's plans, though he is reluctant to second-guess Bush.
``I think that the president is the commander in chief, and while Congress does, in fact, have a role, I don't think that we should be dictating military strategy in Iraq from Capitol Hill,'' Boehner said. It also just happens to be NOT Congress's Constitutional Role. That Role belongs to the President.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: January 5, 2007 16:57 EST
Iraq
Democrats
Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they won't support any proposal by President George W. Bush to increase U.S. forces in Iraq, an option he is considering as he works on a new plan to quell sectarian violence there. Blah Blah what else is new
``Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,'' Gee such great incite from two Brilliant Military Minds the top two congressional Democratic leaders wrote in a letter to Bush. ``It would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.'' No it will give them the Time and Security to accomplish that goal
Senate Majority Whip Richard(Turbin)Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said Democrats are considering options to limit the U.S. involvement, including setting a cap on U.S. troop levels and requiring Bush to obtain congressional approval to exceed it. That is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. Congress has NO authority to set troop limits.
The letter from Pelosi and Reid comes as Bush prepares to lay out a plan next week for new U.S. steps in Iraq and signals Democrats' efforts to thwart any troop increase or exact a political price if Bush orders one. They would rather see us LOSE than win, all in the name of Politics
``There will be the eyes of the American people on everything the president does in Iraq, for a change,'' Reid told reporters today. Those eyes are also on you Harry, the people are watching if your going to jepordize our LIVES for what you think will be a political gain ``The people of this country no longer support this war in Iraq.'' Not True, but they want to win
Among the options Bush is considering is boosting the number of U.S. forces in Iraq, now at about 140,000. Proposals for an increase range from 8,000 more troops to as many as 30,000. The president hasn't indicated which direction he favors.
``I will want to make sure that the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished,'' Bush said this week. Sounds pretty clear to me
Bush Meets With Senators
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush agrees with Pelosi that the U.S. must remain aggressive on the diplomatic front and that Iraq needs a sustainable political settlement and must address sectarian problems.
``The president, for the most part, is listening to people, is listening to ideas,'' he said. ``There will be opportunities for Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to speak with the president on this.'' But not to DICTATE TERMS OF OUR SURRENDER
Bush discussed the war at the White House today with about a dozen senators from both parties, including Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and Republicans Trent Lott of Mississippi, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Idaho.
Obama said he wouldn't support a troop increase. ``I said definitively that I thought it was a bad idea,'' he told reporters after the meeting. Another IDIOT that thinks you can stop bombs and bullets by retreating
`Somber' Meeting
Craig said the mood at the meeting was somber. ``This was not a meeting with lots of smiles,'' he said.
Pelosi, a critic of the war since its inception in March 2003, was elected Speaker of the House yesterday as Democrats took control of the House and Senate. Earlier today, she said that adding more troops would be an escalation of the war that rejects a call from voters in November for a change in direction. Thats not what the voters said. Because that is NOT what you ran on. You ran on NO positions Nancy except hate and want for power.
``I don't support it,'' Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in an interview. ``It's an escalation of the war, and the American people spoke very clearly in the election that if there is any place that they want a new direction, it was in Iraq.'' BULLSHIT
Reid, installed yesterday in the Senate's most powerful post, said Dec. 17 on ABC's ``This Week'' program that he would support a surge of American forces for two or three months as part of a larger plan to withdraw combat troops by 2008.
The letter he and Pelosi sent Bush today said: ``Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, CUT AND RUN while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. Where we going to redeploy to? Okinowa?
Changed His Mind
Reid's action was surprising ``because a week ago Senator Reid was quoted as saying he would support a surge if there was some plan for withdrawal,'' said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in an interview on ``Political Capital with Al Hunt'' to air this weekend on Bloomberg Television. ``This is sort of a 180 in a very short period of time.'' You got Balls McCain, you are large part of the reason the Republican base didn't come out and vote in the first place.
Reid told reporters he changed his mind after learning that U.S. commanders on the ground didn't think a surge would work. Name Two who are NOT retired
``Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed,'' Pelosi and Reid wrote Bush. When?
``After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close,'' they said. When did the Death Count reach over 10,000 last I looked it was barely 3000.
``There is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution,'' they wrote. Yeah and then we can all meet with the Islamofacists and sing Koom Bi Ah
Hearings Scheduled Witch Hunts To Begin
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today released a tentative schedule for four weeks of Iraq hearings beginning with a closed intelligence briefing Jan. 9. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to testify Jan. 11 ahead of a trip to the Middle East.
The committee will ``to seek an answer to the question currently dominating the national debate: what options remain to secure America's interests in Iraq? Where do we go from here?'' said Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the committee. Ah yes the most inteligent member of Congress. One option is all there is Joe WIN and cutting and retreating will not give us a victory, it will give us terrorist attacks in OUR streets.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace will testify before the House Armed Services Committee Jan. 11 and the following day before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committees said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said today he wants to learn more about the president's plans, though he is reluctant to second-guess Bush.
``I think that the president is the commander in chief, and while Congress does, in fact, have a role, I don't think that we should be dictating military strategy in Iraq from Capitol Hill,'' Boehner said. It also just happens to be NOT Congress's Constitutional Role. That Role belongs to the President.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: January 5, 2007 16:57 EST
Iraq
Democrats
Friday, January 05, 2007
Top Democrats Oppose More Troops in Iraq
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 -- As President Bush prepares to present his new strategy on Iraq to the American people, Democratic Congressional leaders said today they will fight any approach that calls for deploying more United States troops there. The push for Cut and Run is about to come on hard
“We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future BULLSHIT but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, wrote to Mr. Bush.
“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,” the Democrats’ letter said. If we add aditional troops and use them to crush Al-Sader and some of the Sunni malitias it will give the Iraqi government the time it needs
Also reiterating his deep opposition to any troop increases was Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. “The administration refuses to acknowledge the devastating impact that keeping our brave troops in Iraq is having on our national security, and now the president is considering sending even more troops,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement. Our National Security has been IMPROVED by our actions in Iraq. The only reason we have NOT been attacked agin here is the Terrorist forces are concentrating on Iraq. Bin Laden and others have stated that fact themselves you idiot.
“We should be bringing our troops out of Iraq, not the other way around,” he said. “The American people’s message at the ballot box was loud and clear, and it is past time that the administration listened.” That is NOT what the Voters said. What the voters said was they were tired of the Republicans NOT acting conservative enough. The Democrats ran on NO platform so they have NO mandate for ANYTHING. You ran on nothing so you don't have support for anything.
The Pelosi-Reid letter, and Mr. Feingold’s allusion to the November elections, underscored the new political reality for the White House. As President Bush prepares to take his case to the American people, and assembles a new military and diplomatic team to go with his redefined Iraq strategy, he is encountering fierce opposition from the newly empowered Democratic leadership. All they can do is Cut Funding to Troops in the Field. Lets see them do that.
In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are digging in more firmly than some of their Democratic colleagues who have not ruled out at least a modest, temporary troop increase. President Bush must be heartened, for example, by the stance of Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new head of the Armed Services Committee, who has said he would not “prejudge” the president’s proposal, provided that any troop increase is linked to a broader approach to disentangle the United States from Iraq. Levin is a Scumbag who is just waiting to see if it's worth jumping on the Band Wagon with his fellow Democrats.
Mr. Levin announced today that the Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on Iraq next Friday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying. Ahh the Witch Hunts begin.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi made it clear they have already made up their minds on troop increases. Their letter was sent as President Bush was signaling the direction he may take by installing new people in key diplomatic and military posts. Of course their minds (if they have any) are made up. They want to Cut and Run and betray the American people and the Iraqi people just like their forebearers in the 60s did to Vietnam.
In promoting Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus to become the top commander in Iraq, succeeding Gen. George W. Casey Jr., President Bush is turning to a general who has been advocating more United States troops in Iraq.
And in choosing Zalmay Khalilzad, the ambassador to Iraq, to be the new American ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bush achieves two goals: he removes Mr. Khalilzad from Baghdad, where he has been perceived by some Shiites as not being sympathetic to him because he is a Sunni, and he gives the United States a strong voice at the United Nations in place of John R. Bolton, who served under a cloud because he was unable to win Senate confirmation. You know that pisses the Dems off
Moreover, in selecting Ryan C. Crocker, the current ambassador to Pakistan, to replace Mr. Khalilzad in Baghdad, the president is calling on one of the State Department’s most respected voices in the Middle East, a diplomat with decades of experience who has been ambassador to Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon.
Finally, in an apparent attempt to lure Democrats to his side in advance of his address to the nation next week, Mr. Bush was conferring today with a dozen or more senators, critics as well as supporters. Among those reportedly being wooed by the president were two Democrats considered moderate to conservative, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Waste of Time
The president’s overtures also underlined a political reality for the Democrats: while they have a relatively comfortable 233-to-202 margin in the House, their edge in the Senate could not be narrower: 51 to 49, counting the two independents who caucus with the Democrats, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
Mr. Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary at least in part because of his support for Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, warned today against any stampede to get out of Iraq. Hoorah for Lieberman, Screw McCain
“Americans are frustrated, Americans are angry, and that anger and frustration is justified,” said Mr. McCain, who has advocated an increase in troops. “But when you ask most Americans should we get out right away, most of them say no.” No one cares what you think McCain
Mr. Lieberman said he hopes the president’s proposals do not set off “partisan political combat or some kind of inside-the-Beltway compromise.” It will happen anyway Joe your collegues care about nothing except their power.
“We’re talking about war here,” Mr. Lieberman said. “We’re talking about security. We’re talking about terrorism. And we’ve got to try to do what’s right for victory in Iraq.” The Democrats want to crush all our ability to fight the war on terror. They will cause the deaths of thousands of Americans here at home . They say it's for the children except their policies will lead to the deaths of hundreds of our children at the hands of self exploding Islamists here at home.
Iraq
Democrats
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 -- As President Bush prepares to present his new strategy on Iraq to the American people, Democratic Congressional leaders said today they will fight any approach that calls for deploying more United States troops there. The push for Cut and Run is about to come on hard
“We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future BULLSHIT but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, wrote to Mr. Bush.
“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,” the Democrats’ letter said. If we add aditional troops and use them to crush Al-Sader and some of the Sunni malitias it will give the Iraqi government the time it needs
Also reiterating his deep opposition to any troop increases was Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. “The administration refuses to acknowledge the devastating impact that keeping our brave troops in Iraq is having on our national security, and now the president is considering sending even more troops,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement. Our National Security has been IMPROVED by our actions in Iraq. The only reason we have NOT been attacked agin here is the Terrorist forces are concentrating on Iraq. Bin Laden and others have stated that fact themselves you idiot.
“We should be bringing our troops out of Iraq, not the other way around,” he said. “The American people’s message at the ballot box was loud and clear, and it is past time that the administration listened.” That is NOT what the Voters said. What the voters said was they were tired of the Republicans NOT acting conservative enough. The Democrats ran on NO platform so they have NO mandate for ANYTHING. You ran on nothing so you don't have support for anything.
The Pelosi-Reid letter, and Mr. Feingold’s allusion to the November elections, underscored the new political reality for the White House. As President Bush prepares to take his case to the American people, and assembles a new military and diplomatic team to go with his redefined Iraq strategy, he is encountering fierce opposition from the newly empowered Democratic leadership. All they can do is Cut Funding to Troops in the Field. Lets see them do that.
In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are digging in more firmly than some of their Democratic colleagues who have not ruled out at least a modest, temporary troop increase. President Bush must be heartened, for example, by the stance of Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new head of the Armed Services Committee, who has said he would not “prejudge” the president’s proposal, provided that any troop increase is linked to a broader approach to disentangle the United States from Iraq. Levin is a Scumbag who is just waiting to see if it's worth jumping on the Band Wagon with his fellow Democrats.
Mr. Levin announced today that the Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on Iraq next Friday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying. Ahh the Witch Hunts begin.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi made it clear they have already made up their minds on troop increases. Their letter was sent as President Bush was signaling the direction he may take by installing new people in key diplomatic and military posts. Of course their minds (if they have any) are made up. They want to Cut and Run and betray the American people and the Iraqi people just like their forebearers in the 60s did to Vietnam.
In promoting Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus to become the top commander in Iraq, succeeding Gen. George W. Casey Jr., President Bush is turning to a general who has been advocating more United States troops in Iraq.
And in choosing Zalmay Khalilzad, the ambassador to Iraq, to be the new American ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bush achieves two goals: he removes Mr. Khalilzad from Baghdad, where he has been perceived by some Shiites as not being sympathetic to him because he is a Sunni, and he gives the United States a strong voice at the United Nations in place of John R. Bolton, who served under a cloud because he was unable to win Senate confirmation. You know that pisses the Dems off
Moreover, in selecting Ryan C. Crocker, the current ambassador to Pakistan, to replace Mr. Khalilzad in Baghdad, the president is calling on one of the State Department’s most respected voices in the Middle East, a diplomat with decades of experience who has been ambassador to Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon.
Finally, in an apparent attempt to lure Democrats to his side in advance of his address to the nation next week, Mr. Bush was conferring today with a dozen or more senators, critics as well as supporters. Among those reportedly being wooed by the president were two Democrats considered moderate to conservative, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Waste of Time
The president’s overtures also underlined a political reality for the Democrats: while they have a relatively comfortable 233-to-202 margin in the House, their edge in the Senate could not be narrower: 51 to 49, counting the two independents who caucus with the Democrats, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont.
Mr. Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary at least in part because of his support for Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, warned today against any stampede to get out of Iraq. Hoorah for Lieberman, Screw McCain
“Americans are frustrated, Americans are angry, and that anger and frustration is justified,” said Mr. McCain, who has advocated an increase in troops. “But when you ask most Americans should we get out right away, most of them say no.” No one cares what you think McCain
Mr. Lieberman said he hopes the president’s proposals do not set off “partisan political combat or some kind of inside-the-Beltway compromise.” It will happen anyway Joe your collegues care about nothing except their power.
“We’re talking about war here,” Mr. Lieberman said. “We’re talking about security. We’re talking about terrorism. And we’ve got to try to do what’s right for victory in Iraq.” The Democrats want to crush all our ability to fight the war on terror. They will cause the deaths of thousands of Americans here at home . They say it's for the children except their policies will lead to the deaths of hundreds of our children at the hands of self exploding Islamists here at home.
Iraq
Democrats
"Without military action, an Iranian nuclear bomb is a matter of time,"
Bedein: Sans Action, Iranian Bomb Just A Matter Of Time
By: David Bedein, For The Bulletin
01/05/2007
"Without military action, an Iranian nuclear bomb is a matter of time," according to the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.
A survey of the strategic balance in the Middle East in 2005 and 2006 that was written by institute experts shows that time is on Iran's side, and that without military action, it will obtain nuclear weapons. The researchers, including Dr. Zvi Stauber, noted that although Israel has the technical capability to carry out an attack "of one kind or another" in Iran, the international community should be allowed to exhaust its efforts at this time.
The institute's researchers determined that in 2006, the threats to security and stability in the Middle East grew more severe because of the stalemate on the Palestinian matter and in light of Iran's progress toward obtaining a nuclear military option. The situation became more severe also because of the absence of accomplishments in the world war on terrorism and against Islamic extremism, and especially from the failure of the American effort to stabilize the crisis in Iraq. The institute also stated that the American failure in Iraq is damaging the U.S.' status in the region, and that Israel has nothing to gain from a continued American presence in Iraq.
Regarding the war in Lebanon, the authors of the study wrote that it illustrated the problematic nature and the fluidity of Israel's strategic environment and exposed weaknesses in the IDF in the decision-making process. The researchers also wrote that despite the U.N.'s decisions, Hezbollah has no restrictions on its rearming. They say that it is likely that in the short-term, Hizbullah will keep things quiet on Israel's border in order to allow the rehabilitation of its arrays and outposts to take place.
As part of the ramifications of the Lebanon War, Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, one of the institute's researchers, explained that the war has two far-reaching and serious results: Arab countries realized that Israel's strength is in doubt to a certain extent, and they could engage in future attacks, a possibility that no one thought of half a year ago.
Another result is the severe disappointment that Israel's embarrassing accomplishments during
Iran
By: David Bedein, For The Bulletin
01/05/2007
"Without military action, an Iranian nuclear bomb is a matter of time," according to the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.
A survey of the strategic balance in the Middle East in 2005 and 2006 that was written by institute experts shows that time is on Iran's side, and that without military action, it will obtain nuclear weapons. The researchers, including Dr. Zvi Stauber, noted that although Israel has the technical capability to carry out an attack "of one kind or another" in Iran, the international community should be allowed to exhaust its efforts at this time.
The institute's researchers determined that in 2006, the threats to security and stability in the Middle East grew more severe because of the stalemate on the Palestinian matter and in light of Iran's progress toward obtaining a nuclear military option. The situation became more severe also because of the absence of accomplishments in the world war on terrorism and against Islamic extremism, and especially from the failure of the American effort to stabilize the crisis in Iraq. The institute also stated that the American failure in Iraq is damaging the U.S.' status in the region, and that Israel has nothing to gain from a continued American presence in Iraq.
Regarding the war in Lebanon, the authors of the study wrote that it illustrated the problematic nature and the fluidity of Israel's strategic environment and exposed weaknesses in the IDF in the decision-making process. The researchers also wrote that despite the U.N.'s decisions, Hezbollah has no restrictions on its rearming. They say that it is likely that in the short-term, Hizbullah will keep things quiet on Israel's border in order to allow the rehabilitation of its arrays and outposts to take place.
As part of the ramifications of the Lebanon War, Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, one of the institute's researchers, explained that the war has two far-reaching and serious results: Arab countries realized that Israel's strength is in doubt to a certain extent, and they could engage in future attacks, a possibility that no one thought of half a year ago.
Another result is the severe disappointment that Israel's embarrassing accomplishments during
Iran
Guardsmen overrun at the Border
12 News
Jan. 4, 2007 02:44 PM
National Guard unit stormed while patroling the border
Border attack raises security concerns
A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.
According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.
The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.
The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.
The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.
hat tip Mikes America
Border
Sideline Insanity: Social Security for illegal aliens
An agreement the Bush administration reached with Mexico on Social Security benefits would allow illegal aliens granted amnesty in the future to claim credit for the time they worked illegally.
Jan. 4, 2007 02:44 PM
National Guard unit stormed while patroling the border
Border attack raises security concerns
A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.
According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.
The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.
The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.
The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.
hat tip Mikes America
Border
Sideline Insanity: Social Security for illegal aliens
An agreement the Bush administration reached with Mexico on Social Security benefits would allow illegal aliens granted amnesty in the future to claim credit for the time they worked illegally.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
This is a Mistake....
Hamas accepts Israeli offer of 450 Palestinian prisoners for Shalit
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
Hamas on Tuesday accepted an Israeli offer to free 450 Palestinian prisoners in the second stage of a deal that would see the release of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who was abducted from his army base on June 25.
Palestinian sources told Haaretz that under the terms of the proposal, Hamas would give Israel a video showing that the 20-year-old Shalit is alive, and in exchange, Israel would release an as-yet undecided number of women and minors held in its jails.
Next, Shalit would be transferred to Egypt, and then to Israel; at the same time, Israel would release the 450 Palestinian prisoners.
Finally, about two months later, Israel would release additional prisoners. Israel would be authorized to decide both how many and which prisoners to free at this stage, but has promised to be "generous," the sources said.
Hamas will transfer to Israel, via Egypt, a list of prisoners it wishes to see freed. Israel has not, however, yet agreed to the list of names, and a dispute over which prisoners will be released could delay the process further.
The list compiled by Hamas includes senior figures in the group's political and military wings, and Fatah members such as Marwan Barghouti.
Hamas spokesman Fuazi Barhum confirmed that Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman met in Saudi Arabia with two top Hamas officials - political leader Khaled Meshal and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
On Sunday, an Egyptian security delegation to Gaza met with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to update him on the agreement between Israel and Hamas regarding the number of Palestinian prisoners to be freed.
Nevertheless, the Egyptian team said that there was some dispute over the identities of those to be freed by Israel, and that Hamas was awaiting Israel's response to its list.
Israel
Getting Over the Holiday Malaise...
Ho Ho Ho and Happy New Year.... Thank God their finely over... Now lets get back to business
Ahh it's nice to find hope in the ashes, ha ha. Today I came across some good horrible news, Once again Thank the gods. The Dems can't control themselves.
In their first 100 hours they are going to raise taxes, raise the minimum wage implement the first phase of Hillary Care and to put it as the lady from Florida put it on c-span this morning "they are going to right every wrong that the Republican majority prevented them from righting over the past 6 years". She said in the first 100 hours they are going to pass ALL the amendments of the past 6 years that they put forth and were voted down because that is the MANDATE that the American people voted for when the voted us in.
That is a paraphrased statement of the deputy majority whip from Florida (I didn't have a pen to record her name as I listened on my XM) (that's my sad Idea of pleasure, relaxing by listening to c-span on the radio)
Now what gave me hope and what struck me as I listened to this woman speak. Was not the details of what she was saying, but the unspoken details that she took for granted as a given. Not that the Democrats will not take any input from the other side that's always been a given. What the unspoken fear and hope that I remember of the Dems of old was the uniform lockstep of their votes. That's what this woman was saying. Nancy and friends are going to follow the Daschle / Gephardt model of no matter what you feel if you don't vote with the party you get nothing,....
that's what I remember of the Dems of the past. The march and arrogance of the true believers, those who "Know Better" what the rest of us need. That's what she was saying was back. If that's the case it is going to be a bad, but they will remind the country why they were voted out of power after 40yrs voted out in a time of peace. Two years of those that worship at the alter Marx and John Lenon during war guarantees a Republican congress and president in 08.
Just an add on
Our Random Thoughts for the Week
TROP: We counted 93 Iraqis who lost their lives to Islamic terrorists last Saturday, yet the only death in that country that inspired international moral outrage was that of Saddam Hussein, the man who murdered entire families with nerve agents, tortured reform advocates to their grave by pumping their intestines full of air (among other gruesome tactics) and was responsible for the deaths of more than a million people.
Anyone who wastes sympathy on a man like this (over the lives of 93 people who did nothing to deserve it) is merely trumpeting their own self-righteousness, since no one outside of Islam could possibly be this morally confused.
Democrats
Ahh it's nice to find hope in the ashes, ha ha. Today I came across some good horrible news, Once again Thank the gods. The Dems can't control themselves.
In their first 100 hours they are going to raise taxes, raise the minimum wage implement the first phase of Hillary Care and to put it as the lady from Florida put it on c-span this morning "they are going to right every wrong that the Republican majority prevented them from righting over the past 6 years". She said in the first 100 hours they are going to pass ALL the amendments of the past 6 years that they put forth and were voted down because that is the MANDATE that the American people voted for when the voted us in.
That is a paraphrased statement of the deputy majority whip from Florida (I didn't have a pen to record her name as I listened on my XM) (that's my sad Idea of pleasure, relaxing by listening to c-span on the radio)
Now what gave me hope and what struck me as I listened to this woman speak. Was not the details of what she was saying, but the unspoken details that she took for granted as a given. Not that the Democrats will not take any input from the other side that's always been a given. What the unspoken fear and hope that I remember of the Dems of old was the uniform lockstep of their votes. That's what this woman was saying. Nancy and friends are going to follow the Daschle / Gephardt model of no matter what you feel if you don't vote with the party you get nothing,....
that's what I remember of the Dems of the past. The march and arrogance of the true believers, those who "Know Better" what the rest of us need. That's what she was saying was back. If that's the case it is going to be a bad, but they will remind the country why they were voted out of power after 40yrs voted out in a time of peace. Two years of those that worship at the alter Marx and John Lenon during war guarantees a Republican congress and president in 08.
Just an add on
Our Random Thoughts for the Week
TROP: We counted 93 Iraqis who lost their lives to Islamic terrorists last Saturday, yet the only death in that country that inspired international moral outrage was that of Saddam Hussein, the man who murdered entire families with nerve agents, tortured reform advocates to their grave by pumping their intestines full of air (among other gruesome tactics) and was responsible for the deaths of more than a million people.
Anyone who wastes sympathy on a man like this (over the lives of 93 people who did nothing to deserve it) is merely trumpeting their own self-righteousness, since no one outside of Islam could possibly be this morally confused.
Democrats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)