Looks like the Senate GOP may leave it to the President to kill this deadline plan.

Unwilling to do the White House's heavy lifting on Iraq, Senate Republicans are prepared to step aside to allow language requiring troop withdrawals to reach President Bush, forcing him to face down Democratic adversaries with his veto pen.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced the shift in strategy yesterday, as the chamber took up a $122 billion war spending package that includes a target date of March 31, 2008, for ending most U.S. combat operations in Iraq. The provision, along with a similar House effort, represents the Democrats' boldest challenge on the war, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown with Bush over an otherwise popular bill to keep vital military funds flowing.

Republicans will still attempt to remove the deadline in a Senate vote expected as soon as today, and GOP leaders were reasonably confident they would muster a majority. But the margin is expected to be thin, requiring the presence of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had skipped several previous Iraq votes to attend presidential campaign events. McCain canceled a series of fundraisers and meetings in Florida to return to Washington, telling a conservative radio program that he wanted to "beat back this recipe for defeat that the Democrats are trying to foist off on the American people."

No matter the outcome of the Senate vote, McConnell is looking ahead, assuming House Democrats will insist that withdrawal conditions be included when a final bill is sent to Bush. If so, McConnell said, Republicans would forgo the parliamentary tactics they used to block antiwar legislation that had forced Democrats to amass an insurmountable 60 votes to prevail.

"We need to get the bill on down to the president and get the veto out of the way," McConnell said.

Regardless, there will be no deadline enacted into law by Congress. Not even this absurd notion.

In one of the more unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Sen. Mark Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.

The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party's proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31, 2008, for winding up military operations in Iraq. Unlike the plan's Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.

"My strong preference would be to have a classified plan and a classified timetable that should be shared with Congress," Pryor said yesterday. A public deadline would tip off the enemy, "who might just bide their time and wait for us to leave," he said. "Then you'd have chaos and mayhem and instability."

Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets "all the time."

And Congress leaks secrets all the time -- I imagine it would take about 20 minutes for some enterprising Democrat staffer to be dubbed "an anonymous Capitol Hill source" by the television networks, the NY Times and Washington Post. After all, when has the mere fact that something is classified -- and its disclosure harmful to national security -- ever stopped them from supplying information to the enemy? And since there is never any prosecution of leakers of classified info, what would be the reason to think it would not be let out to the public quickly?

Posted by: Greg at 03:24 AM | Comments (180) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

Today I'm joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.

MORE COVERAGE AT WaPo & NYTimes

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.

How fitting that a grateful nation honors a soldier who willingly gave his life to save his comrades.

The legacy of an Iraq War hero from Allegany County will be honored on the high seas for years to come.

Members of Congress announced Tuesday that the U.S. Navy will name its newest guided-missile destroyer the USS Jason Dunham – for the Marine corporal from Scio who threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades in April 2004.

“We’re basically totally amazed that this happened,” said Deb Dunham, Jason’s mother. “I anticipated that it would be 10 or 20 years before we saw this.”

Indeed, the Navy has a long tradition of naming its ships for war heroes, but it often happens many decades after their death.

For example, in June 2006, the Navy commissioned the USS Farragut, a guided-missile destroyer named for Adm. David Glasgow Farragut, the Civil War hero who coined the phrase: “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

Mrs. Dunham said she wasn’t sure how the Navy came to name a ship for her son less than three years after his death. She said the family’s Marine liaison called last week to mention the possibility. “We thought it was very appropriate,” she said.

The naming of the ship will be just the latest accolade accorded to Dunham, who was awarded the Medal of Honor — the nation’s highest military award – by President Bush in January.

As a historian, I know it is important that we honor the heroes of decades and centuries past, to keep their memory – and our history – alive. But it is equally appropriate that we bestow such honors upon our latter-day heroes – men like Jason Dunham, who gladly served this nation and who laid down his life for his friends.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

Want to bet it won't be enough for the rabid Bush-hating Left? Comments at the article's end proves it won't be.

George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush who was a hit on the campaign trail, has been accepted in the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer and has begun the process of being commissioned for eight years of service.

Bush, 30, said in a telephone interview from his office at a real estate development firm in Fort Worth, Texas, that he was moved to join the service in part when he attended the rainy commissioning in October of the aircraft carrier named for his grandfather -- the USS George H.W. Bush.

"My grandfather's my hero, and what really sold me on the ultimate decision was having the chance to see the CVN-77 be commissioned under his name," he said. "That was pretty moving, and I had a chance to meet some Navy admirals, as well. I had a chance to talk to them briefly about the opportunity, and I was won over."

George Prescott Bush, the oldest son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, said the death of Pat Tillman, the NFL player and Army Ranger who was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 in what was later determined to be a friendly-fire incident, "was a wake-up call for me." He said he even "looked into active duty" and had somber conversations with his wife about the possibility.

Bush said he had not intended to announce his plans. "Honestly, I'm kind of a little disappointed that the word got out," he said. "I was hoping to keep this as confidential as possible. I'm not doing it for political purposes or anything along those lines. I'm just doing it because I've been inspired by the friends of mine that have served, either through the JAG (military law) program or through the Reserves. I thought this was a small way that I could get involved."

I wish this young man -- and future political rock star -- well in his military endeavors.

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Talk about your cynical ploys -- she is willing to support resolutions for a withdrawal of troops, but says she won't do so if elected. That should tell the American people everything they need to know about her willingness to lose the war to win the election.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

So you see, "bring them home" doesn't mean "bring them home" -- it means leave them there but don't let them do anything. In short, she has been out on the campaign trail lying to the American people -- but then again, why should we be surprised, given her track record?

Indeed, she has said she will be even less sensitive to genocide than her husband was, for she says she won't let US troops stop ethnic cleansing, even if it is going on right outside their door. At least when her husband stood by and allowed the genocide to continue in Rwanda, the only US troops in the country were a few embassy guards. In other words, not only is she a liar, she sees it as her proper role to allow crimes against humanity to continue unchecked. The woman is completely amoral!

May I propose the following slogan for her campaign?

Posted by: Greg at 08:51 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

By now, everyone has heard about this little controversy surrounding remarks by General Peter Pace on the issue of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and gays in the military.

Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Chicago Tribune yesterday that he opposes any change to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars service by openly gay soldiers. General Pace, a Marine officer, explained why he supported the current policy:

“I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

As you can hear in this audio file posted on the Web site of The Tribune, General Pace drew a parallel between the ban on openly gay service members and the current military policy holding that infidelity is immoral and should be prosecuted:

“I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying, through our policies, that it’s okay to be immoral in any way, not just with regards homosexuality. So from that standpoint, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity. And therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with someone else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not — we prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the armed forces.”

Now let me note that the man is supporting current law and policy as set by the two political branches of government. Furthermore, the moral view of homosexual that he expresses is pretty mainstream -- indeed, they are the standard moral teaching of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (at least of those who still adhere to the notion that their respective books of scripture provide set moral norms). So I agree with Pace's position, expressed through his aides, that he has nothing to apologize for. Indeed, 'd argue that the gay rights groups really ought to be apologizing to the majority of Americans who hold beliefs similar to Pace's for the intolerance that they are expressing in condemnations like this.

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.

Excuse me -- that demand is outrageous, insensitive, and disrespectful to the millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims currently citizens of the United States.

None of which, however, is an indication that I agree with General Pace about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. I have long held and repeatedly stated that I believe the policy is wrong and should be changed. But to attack and demonize (not to mention question the patriotism of) those who hold to the historic teachings of the major monotheistic religions is much more offensive in my book than stating a moral belief held by all three of them.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 6 kb.

I wonder how much the conditions noted at Walter Reed Hospital have to do with the fact that the place has been slated for closure for some time.

Revelations of shoddy facilities and bureaucratic nightmares at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have tarnished the reputation of the renowned military hospital. But they may also have given the 98-year-old facility a second life.

The furor surrounding the treatment of wounded soldiers has prompted some lawmakers, veterans and Army officials to ask: Why is the Defense Department closing Walter Reed -- where more than 6,000 soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated since 2002 -- in the middle of a war with mounting casualties?

Congress approved and President Bush signed into law the recommendation of the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission in 2005 that Walter Reed be closed and consolidated with the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, where a $2 billion expansion is being planned.

The debate has been fueled by testimony from Army officials that the problems in outpatient care have been exacerbated, in part, by the planned closure in 2011. Commanders said this has created "instability" at the hospital and made it difficult to keep a good work force, which is two-thirds civilian.

"The BRAC pressure is clear," agreed Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). "What it does is send the signal to everybody: Go look for another job because we think it's going to close down." Norton said she will introduce legislation seeking to repeal the planned closure of Walter Reed.

The issue also arose at a hearing yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I have concerns, as we go through this long war, about taking down capacity that may be needed," testified Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff.

"I think we should take a second look at that decision about Walter Reed," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) responded.

That does not excuse the situation at all -- it is inexcusable -- but it might partially explain the failure to do renovations that were clearly necessary. If the place is going to be fixed up, it does not make sense to close it down.

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.