A Dangerous Retreat From The War Of Ideas

Within the past week, Homeland Security released the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Defense Department released the Quadrennial Defense Review. These are major reports designed to drive policy for the next few years. Yet reading through the two of them, there seems to be something missing - like any mention of the threat from "Islamic" terrorists. Indeed, other than a mention of al Qaeda and generic "terrorists," the word "Islam" and its derivations do not appear in either report.

This is PC madness. It is wishing the problems away. We will never - repeat never - win the war against Islamic terrorism unless and until we engage in the war of ideas against the ideology driving that terrorism. I criticized Bush for only engaging in the war of ideas half heartedly. But that is a half more than Obama has done. Obama has completely retreated from the war of ideas. That is a dangerous retreat indeed, as to quote former terrorist Dr. Tawfiq Hamid, "the civilized world ought to recognize the immense danger that Salafi Islam poses; it must become informed, courageous and united if it is to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant ideology."

Let's highlight that for a moment. Let's do a little exercise.

1. Do you know the person pictured at the top of this post?

2. He is a cleric in what denomination of Islam?

3. What is his background?

4. Why is he important?

5. Ideologically, what differentiates him from, say, Zhudi Jasser or David Suliman Schwartz, two prominent Muslims in America?

6. What is different about the pictured man's version of Sunni Islam from . . . let's pick the Shafi'i school of Sunni Islam prevalent in Indonesia during Obama's time there?

If you can answer those questions, that puts you ahead of probably 99.99% of all other Americans. Yet these are questions about which most Americans should have at least some idea.
The Answers:

1. The man pictured at the top of the post is Anwar al Alaki.

2. Alaki is a Wahhabi / Salafi cleric.

3. He was born in America and raised here until he was 11, then went to Yemen for ten years before returning to receive his college education in America. It is not clear whether he was radicalized here or in Yemen, though that would be very helpful to know. Salafism is the prevalent form of Islam practiced in Yemen, but most mosques in the U.S. are owned by Salafists (compliments of Saudi petrodollars) and there is a strong radical element funded through Saudi Arabia on most campuses.

4. Alaki is a member of al Qaeda. He played a central role in both the Ft. Hood Massacre and the attempted slaughter by Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Undiebomber.

5. Alaki, in full accord with the doctrines of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, believes Western society is incompatible with Islam and wants to impose sharia law throughout the world. Also in accord with the teachings of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, he views use of force and terror as legitimate means to that end. Zhudi Jasser and David Suliman Schwartz are Muslim reformers. Both seek modifications of Salafi Islam and both practice forms of Islam that they believe are compatible with Western freedoms. Both are highly critical of Salafism and neither wants to see Sharia law imposed in any state.

6. Salafism is militant, triumphalist, and deeply discriminatory. The Shafi'i school, practiced in Indonesia during Obama's stay there, was far less militant and very open to coexisting with other religions. It is changing now as Salafists are being sent to Indonesia in force by Saudi Arabia. They are radicalizing influence on Islam in Indonesia. That said, historically, terrorists have not arisen from practitioners of the Shafi'i school; they have virtually all arisen from the Salafi / Wahhabi school and schools heavily influenced by Salafism.

If most Americans knew the answers to those questions, it would tell us and the world that we are not at war with Islam, but that we are at war with the ideology of Salafists. It would give standing and recognition to those Muslims who are fighting the overtaking of their religion by Salafits. Given the warning signs put out by Major Nidal Hassan prior to the Ft. Hood massacre, and given that he was a Salafist, it would likely have meant that the warning signs would have been heeded and the massacre aborted months before it occurred. It would place Salafism where it needs to be - in the full and direct light of the public, subject to the strongest force a democratic world can muster, public opinion. It is only that which will force a moderation of Salafi Islam. But if we can't answer those questions, than we can do nothing to "to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant [Salafi] ideology."

In this, it seems, Obama has thrown not merely us, but all of the non-Salafi Islamic world under the bus. Add that to a national counterterrorism effort in tatters and you have a recipe for disaster - not to mention never-ending war with the law of averages being that one day, these terrorists will succeed in a nuclear attack on America.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq Through GAO Glasses Darkly

Within the past two days, both the Department of Defense and the GAO have issued reports on Iraq. The DoD report is guardedly optimistic about Iraqi progress. It is an important report and I will summarize it separately. The GAO report is a partisan document that uses selective facts and data, ignores key facts, and seems written by people best described as 'bean counters.' As the Washington Post states, "the two reports seemed to assess wholly different realities." I beg to differ. Only one report documents reality, and it is clearly not the GAO report.
__________________________________________________________

The GAO’s last major report on Iraq was, if I recall correctly, the document solicited by Democrats in the week before General Petraeus briefed Congress in September, 2007. That was the document all Democrats relied upon to suggest that General Petraeus was being highly dishonest about the success of the surge. In reviewing the GAO's most recent product, there seems to be no improvement in quality, veracity or objectivity.

The problems with the newly released GAO report are systemic. One, there is definitely a partisan bent that shows throughout the report in how data is presented to shine the worst possible light on Iraq. Two, this report is an attempt by bureaucrats and bean counters to find bright lines and right angles in a situation that has murky lines and is chock full of odd angles – and they are having a lot trouble digesting it. For example, the GAO makes a great deal out of the fact that no oil law is yet in place in Iraq. They completely ignore the fact that, while this law is still in negotiation, the situation is not broken simply because an oil law is not in place. They ignore that oil revenues are being shared and shared fairly.

Likewise is the GAO’s take on the vast improvements being made in Iraqi security forces. If one reads the GAO report, it is as if there has been little to any qualitative improvement occurring among Iraqi security forces since the September, 2007 GAO report. The GAO comes to it assessment of the lack of progress in Iraqi forces by cherry picking DOD data and, claiming as one of the reasons that the Iraqi forces are not making sufficient progress that Iraqi forces are overly “dependen[t] on U.S. and coalition forces.” The clear implication is that if we simply do an Obama and leave, the Iraqi forces will improve. Nowhere in the report is the greatest threat to Iraq – the mad mullahs next door who, incidently, threaten the Western world – even mentioned.

What I find most offensive about this report is that it claims a “new strategy” is needed in Iraq, apparently finding the surge planning insufficient and not achieving its goals. The precise contours of a change in strategy are only vaguely hinted at in the report, but it seems certain this conclusion is tailor made for Obama and the Democrats.

Having taken the time to read the GAO, I feel that I have been cheated out of two hours of my life. The DOD, Treasury, and State Dept. all have filed dissents from this report which are attached to the report as annexes. But make up your own mind. You can find the report with annexes here.

Read More...

Summary only...

No Good McDeed Goes Unpunished

In 2001, Sen. John McCain became suspicious of the manner in which a plan to lease tankers from Boeing for $26 billion was structured. After dogged investigation and a refusal to bow to extremes of pressure from all sides, McCain exposed an arrangement between Boeing and a corrupt Air Force procurement officer that was costing American’s billions. The end result was the procurement officer and several of Boeing’s leadership were sent to jail and America got a procurement process far freer of fraud. A few days ago, a KC-35 Tanker contract, subject to competitive bid, was awarded by the Air Force to an Air Bus consortium, and McCain is being accused of somehow causing the loss of American jobs. What insanity is this?

__________________________________________________

This story began in 2001 when John McCain found a footnote in the federal budget providing $26 billion for the Air Force to lease tankers from Boeing. The fact that it was a lease raised McCain’s interest. A lease circumvents the normal authorization and competitive bid process.

McCain demanded answers from the Air Force and Boeing, but instead got obstuction, "Boeing's 35-person Washington lobbying operation in a classic Washington power play and a media blitz worthy of Madison Avenue." Despite this and pressure from his colleagues, McCain was utterly "tenacious" in his investigation. At the end of the road was "the biggest Pentagon weapons scandal in 20 years." You can read an extensive background of the story of McCain’s investigation here.

CBS’s 60 Minutes did a program on the scope of the fraud and corruption involving Air Force senior procurement officer, Darleen Druyun, that was brought to light by McCain’s investigation. She was eventually convicted and sent to jail. Boeing itself came under a new CEO, its chief lobbyist involved in the fraud stepped down, one executive was sent to jail, and Boeing paid a $615 million fine to the government. Our government made a "sea change" in its procedures for procurement. Senator John McCain showed the political courage that is his hallmark, and the outcome was very positive for America.

Fast forward to today,

Now, the utterly odious Nancy Pelosi is suggesting that the Air Force’s recent decision to award a KC 35 Tanker contract to Northrupp Grumond and an Air Bus consortioum is the result of "intervention" by John McCain, an act also discussed in an AP article. Moreover, because one individual who is working on the McCain campaign is also a lobbyist for the Air Bus consortium, some are suggesting that McCain is somehow responsible for the decision by the Air Force to award the contract to Air Bus. There is no evidence whatsoever that McCain influenced the Air Force’s decision in this specific instance. To suggest otherwise is logic worthy of the New York Times in their hit piece on the Paxson Communications matter. Unfortunately, one of my "daily read" favorites, Gateway Pundit, gets it wrong on this. As regards this matter, to paraphrase Shakespeare, we should come to praise McCain, not to bury him.

As Ed Morrisey notes at Hot Air, "[T]he politicians fulminate about the award going to an outside firm. The time to consider that question was at the RFP stage, not the award stage. If the government didn’t want the contract to go to a European firm, it shouldn’t have allowed EADS to bid on it. And if the US wants to compete in the European market, it can’t act protectionist here."

Read More...

Summary only...

The State Department's Unilateral Foreign Policy

Until a few weeks ago, I was under the misapprehension that our State Dept. existed to further the foreign policy of the Executive Branch. The first major clue as to how wrong I was came with the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Through the disingenuous use of labels and some incredible sleight of hand in their very selective choice of inferences – see here - three State Department personnel who oversaw the writing of that NIE managed to turn what should have been an objective intelligence assessment into a policy document undercutting the President by positing:

1) Iran’s current nuclear enrichment is part of a "civilian" program - despite the fact that Iran has no possible use for the fuel its enriching;

2) Iran’s theocracy is rational by western standards; and

3) The use of force or threat of the same is not necessary to effect Iran’s decision making process. Talks with Iran, if accompanied by other diplomatic measures, is the appropriate way to proceed.

It was a successful coup that portrayed Iran as far less of a threat than that country actually is. And now we have our State Department acting similarly to portray the Iranian theocracy’s actions as peaceful and cooperative as regards Iraq. This is in contradiction of the facts on the ground. The only possible explanation is that this is an attempt to set the stage for unilateral talks with Iran.

What Iran has been doing for some time now is to duplicate in Iraq the same basic game plan that Iran has followed in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Iran develops a group of proxies - trains them, arms them, funds them - and then turns them loose to cause as much murder and mayhem as possible in the host country. Based on the models in Lebanon and Gaza, it can be assessed that the ultimate goal of Iran is to have their proxies become a political and military force in the host country beholden to Iran. Iran’s actions have been incredibly destabilizing – and deadly - in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East. There is a phrase that appropriately describes Iran's actions in Iraq, though it does not appear to be in the State Dept. lexicon. That phrase is "acts of war."

According to General Petraeus in an interview on December 17, 2007:

. . . Q: Another factor that has seriously threatened the formation of a stable and secure Iraq is Iran. Lately Tehran seems to have decreased its interference in Iraq. Would you agree to that assessment?

P: There may be Iranian reduction in exporting violence to Iraq. I say "may" because it really is a may. There is not an apparent reduction in training because we have detained individuals in recent months and weeks who recently received training in Iran as late as late October or early November. . .

And from our Dept. of Defense assessment issued earlier this month:

. . . There has been no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi’a militias in Iraq. Tehran’s support for Shi’a militant groups who attack Coalition and Iraq forces remains a significant impediment to progress towards stabilization. The Iranian Islamic Revolu-tionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) provides many of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups, to include Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM). Although Sadr’s late August 2007 freeze on JAM activity is still in effect, some elements continue to attack Coalition forces with Iranian weapons. The GoI and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq have made it clear to the Iranian Government that IRGC-QF’s lethal activities must cease.

But none of this is true according to the senior State Department official on Iraq, David Satterfield. He is claiming as fact the very dubious inference that Iran’s mullaocracy has somehow decided to put the hold on its deadly meddling in Iraq.

The Iranian government has decided "at the most senior levels" to rein in the violent Shiite militias it supports in Iraq, a move reflected in a sharp decrease in sophisticated roadside bomb attacks over the past several months, according to the State Department's top official on Iraq.

Tehran's decision does not necessarily mean the flow of those weapons from Iran has stopped, but the decline in their use and in overall attacks "has to be attributed to an Iranian policy decision," David M. Satterfield, Iraq coordinator and senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said in an interview.

. . . Satterfield agreed that Iran was not acting out of "altruism" but rather from "alarm at what was being done by the groups they were backing in terms of their own long-term interests."

At a news conference Friday, Rice sidestepped an opportunity to criticize Iran. The United States, she said, remains "open to better relations" with Iran, adding, "We don't have permanent enemies."

. . . But "we have seen such a consistent and sustained diminution in certain kinds of violence by certain kinds of folks that we can't explain it solely" by internal factors in Iraq, Satterfield said. "If you add those all together, your calculus doesn't come out unless you also add in that the Iranians at a command level must have said or done something, as well."

He declined to discuss specific evidence. "We are confident that decisions involving the strategy pursued by the IRGC are made at the most senior levels of the Iranian government," Satterfield said, referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The administration has used that formulation in the past to insist that IRGC training and supplies for militias in Iraq were ordered by Tehran's highest clerical leaders.

Read the article here. As to Sec. of State Rice's statement that we have "no permanent enemies," that's a great soundbite, but highly naive. The Iranian theocracy defines the core of its legitimacy by its enmity to the U.S., and the theocracy has been at war with the U.S. since its inception in 1979. While wanting better relations with Iran is laudable, ignoring the history of our relations with Iran's theocracy will do absolutely nothing to advance those relations.

As mentioned in this blog previously, that decline in Iranian sponsored mayhem and murder can be attributed to the effects of the surge, including the targeting of IRGC agents inside Iraq, the targeting of Iran's "special groups" proxies, and the interdiction of Iran's supply channels. See this report by Bill Roggio specifically addressing this issue. All of that is ignored by our State Department who prefer, solely on the basis of a dubious inference, to paint Iran’s mullaocracy as peaceful and cooperative.

This is suicidal insanity. Whether we should hold unilateral talks with Iran is open to legitimate debate. But we have no chance of dealing with Iran, whether in such talks or by any other means, if our State Department is falsely portraying Iran's actions and intentions. It is akin to justifying the handling of rattle snakes by simply asserting that they are really not dangerous. If one wants to survive an encounter with such a snake, the first thing that must happen is to approach it with the full acknowledgment of its nature.

We now have multiple people at the highest level's of the State Department who have acted to utterly minimize the very real threat posed by Iran. The only conceivable purpose for these acts is to set the stage for unilateral talks. Our State Department is advancing its own unilateral foreign policy agenda. The first step to dealing effectively with Iran is to reign in an out-of-control State Department.

Read More...

Summary only...

DOD Report: Iraq’s Security & Economy Improving; Iran Continues Its Lethal Meddling Unabated

The quarterly DOD report, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, December 2007, has been released. It contains some good news, some troubling, particularly as to Iran and the Kurdish north. The report compliments and, in some instances, flushes out many of the problems identified by LTG Barry McCaffery in his own report. What follows is a brief summary of the DOD report:

1. Political Stability:

 Security is substantially improved setting the conditions for improvements across the spectrum of government functions.

 The most notable improvements in governance and the economy are at grass roots.

 The Iraqi central government is grid-locked and not functioning to pass needed legislation.

2. National Reconciliation:

 The central government has succeeded in passing a law authorizing pensions for former civil servants in the Saddam regime.

 The “de-Baathification laws” has received first and second reading but has yet to be voted out of the central government.

 Reconciliation is occurring at the grass roots level as Sunnis join the political process and Maliki has been reaching out to bring Sunnis into the political process, irrespective of specific legislation

3. Politics:

 The Maliki government has been weakened by resignations in August of Sunni ministers and the earlier resignation of Sadrist ministers

 Maliki has appointed technocrats unaligned with any political party to take the positions left by Sadrist ministers. Several of his nominations are being thwarted by manuevering in the parliament.

 Hydrocarbon Laws are still stuck in parliament, but the government has been de facto collecting and distributing oil revenues to the provinces, and there has been no complaints to date that it has been doing so unfairly.

 The Kurdistan Regional Government has passed their own hydrocarbon law in direct challenge to the Central government, which has declared the KRG laws illegal.

 Constitutional review of all the “hard questions” left unanswered in the original Constitution is ongoing but showing no signs of resolution. Some of the biggest issues resolve around Kurdish aspirations for a separate government and “Article 140” issues – i.e., whether major oil-rich territories, including Mosul and Kirkuk, will come under the ambit of the KRG.

 The UN is playing a positive role in resolving the Constitutional issues and, in particular, those associated with Article 140.

 Provincial Elections – The UN is also playing a positive role in setting the stage for provincial elections. The law authorizing these elections is now with Maliki for review. The problems are lack of a census, security and logistics concerns, and large numbers of displaced persons are seen as problems that must be addressed.

4. Government Reform:

 Ministry Reform – work with the various ministries by State Dept. and USAID are receiving mixed results

 Provincial Reconstruction Teams – These are in every province and are doing exceptional work in helping to rebuild infrastructure, foster local governance and economic development.

 Rule of Law – the Iraqi legal system of detention through trial is not yet up to speed. The number of judges in the country only recently went from 100 to 1200.

5. Transnational Issues:

 Iran – Iran’s lethal meddling in Iraq is a significant destabilizing force and has in no way abated.

. . . There has been no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi’a militias in Iraq. Tehran’s support for Shi’a militant groups who attack Coalition and Iraq forces remains a significant impediment to progress towards stabilization. The Iranian Islamic Revolu-tionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) provides many of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups, to include Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM). Although Sadr’s late August 2007 freeze on JAM activity is still in effect, some elements continue to attack Coalition forces with Iranian weapons. The GoI and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq have made it clear to the Iranian Government that IRGC-QF’s lethal activities must cease.

 Syrian Influence

Terrorists, foreign fighters, and former Iraqi regime elements continue to find sanctuary, border transit opportunities and logistical support in Syria. Syria is estimated to be the entry point for 90% of all foreign terrorists known in Iraq. Recent efforts by the Syrian Government to stem the flow of foreign terrorists and suicide bombers inside of Syria may have had some effect in decreasing the flow of extremists into Iraq. The Syrian Government participates in the Neighbors Process framework, having hosted both the inaugural Border Security Working group in August 2007 and the follow-up Border Security Working group in November 2007. While these are positive diplomatic steps, it is not clear that Syria has made a strategic decision to persistently and comprehensively deal with foreign terrorists. The Syrian Government must take additional measures to further reduce the flow of foreign terrorists transiting Syria into Iraq.

 Tensions on the Border with Turkey

Turkey’s primary concerns regarding Iraq continue to be terrorism conducted by the Kurdistan Peoples Congress (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK)) from camps in northern Iraq, increased autonomy for the Kurdistan Regional Government from the central Iraqi Government and the final status of the oil rich city of Kirkuk. After the election of President Gul in Turkey and Prime Minister Maliki’s visit to Turkey, these governments signed a counter-terrorism cooperation agreement establishing a bilateral, interagency security commission to work towards curbing the actions of terrorist organizations, including the KGK and al Qaeda.

6. Economy:

 Oil production now averages 2.28 million barrels per day and is increasing with improvement to security and infrastructure.

 The economy is expanding at a healthy rate of 6.3%, but there are some significant problems that need to be addressed. Weak institutions, a poor business climate, limited access to capital, lack of essential services, poor technical skills and security issues remain obstacles to private sector-led growth.

 Inflation is being brought under control. Year-to-date inflation as of October 2007 is 4.2%, compared to year-to-date inflation through October 2006 of 42.7% and 22.9% in 2005.

 Unemployment and underemployment are estimated at 17.6% and 38.1%, respectively.

 Agriculture, which employs 25% of Iraqi’s workforce, is being modernized with new technologies and the growth of private farms are at the heart of a program by USAID.

 The key to resolving long-term employment issues in Iraq is private sector investment, but this requires a secure positive legal environment, access to capital and access to markets. Access to capital is increasing through U.S. and Iraqi central government programs, but Iraq’s legal system is still in a state of flux and market access still remains problematic.


7. Essential Services:

 The news here is not improving but still poor.

 Improving the availability of basic services such as electricity, water and healthcare to all Iraqis could help improve the public’s confidence in the government. During this reporting period, the GoI’s improvements in budget execution have translated into minimal advances in the delivery of essential services to the people of Iraq, mainly due to sectarian bias in targeting and execution of remedial programs. With the U.S. Government’s 2004 Iraq Relief and Reconstruction fund limited to deobligated funds authorized for reobligation and with significantly reduced appropriations for other reconstruction funding sources in 2008, Iraq will now be required to fund most future reconstruction projects.

 Electricity – both demand and generation are up significantly.

 Water and sewer – this area seems shaky at best

 The Mosul Dam is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The Mosul Dam was built on an unstable rock foundation that is continuously dissolving, resulting in the formation of cavities and voids below the dam’s foundation that could cause catastrophic failure.

8. Security:

 Security has improved dramatically. Violence is down by all measures to a level last seen in the summer of 2005.

 In many parts of Iraq, the reopening of schools, clinics, markets and improvements in essential services all suggest improvements resulting from hard-fought security gains. These improvements coincide with the growing willingness of Sunni and Shi’a tribal leaders to cooperate with efforts to stabilize Iraq. . . .

 Shi’a criminal activities have become growing threats to security and stability as the role of insurgents and AQI wanes.

 “Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF) efforts to train, equip, and fund Shi’a extremists also continue despite reported assurances to Prime Minister Maliki that Iran will cease lethal aid. Unequal adherence to Muqtada al-Sadr’s call for a Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) forces ceasefire has resulted in schisms within the Office of Martyr Sadr and JAM, particularly among JAM special groups, but has also opened the door for increased engagement with the Shi’a community.”

 “AQI retains the capability to conduct spectacular and highly lethal terrorist attacks in parts of central and northern Iraq. This helps explain the rise in car bomb attacks in July 2007 that temporar-ily disrupted an overall downward trend from February through November 2007. AQI has also shifted to a murder and intimidation campaign directed at its former Sunni allies in an attempt to counter the growing anti-AQI tribal movement. This strategy has not been productive, however, and the tribal movement continues to spread beyond western Iraq to other provinces such as Salah ad Din and Diyala, where the CLC program has been important in reducing AQI’s capabilities.”

Part II of the report deals with the statistics governing the growth in training and operations of Iraqi military, police and other security forces.

You can find the entire DOD report here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Baghdad Harry Reid Joins Pelosi & Murtha in Call To Legislate Defeat In Iraq

With news out of Iraq - though not found in the MSM - getting better and better each day, the neo-liberal left still refuse to loosen their embrace of surrender and the narrative of defeat. Last week it was Spearker Pelosi & Rep. Murtha threatening not to fund the war unless a date certain was set for withdrawal and the complete end to all combat operations in Iraq. Enter Sen. Majority Ldr Harry Reid, continuing his impression of Baghdad Bob, a role he first auditioned for in April when he declared that the U.S. military had been defeated in Iraq as a result of four suicide bombs by al Qaeda. He continues to compeletely ignore reality in what is so obviously an attempt for partisan gain, irrespective of the impact on our national security or, for that matter, the operation of the Defense Department in time of war:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

. . . But their [Reid, Pelosi & Murtha's] remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.

If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.

. . . In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.

England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.

"The successes they (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good work," England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.

. . . The House was expected to vote as early as Wednesday, with the Senate following suit by the end of the week.

Read the article. What will the Democrats do when the MSM begins reporting the news? There will be a price to pay for their perfidy. One gets the impression that they think by closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears, they think that they can ignore reality until it goes away and leaves them alone in their fantasy world. Reality won't - but the independent voters who will decide the next election likely will.

Read More...

Summary only...