Pelosi and the democrat defeat caucus have another plan to pull troops out of Iraq.  Let's see how many pubbies sign up for this one. 

Credit: Editorial from the National Review.

Say at least this for House Democrats: They are beginning to find the courage of their profoundly mistaken convictions. They have moved on from pretending that a nonbinding resolution against sending additional troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province is a serious blow against the war in Iraq to more strenuous attempts to handicap our prosecution of the fight there.

The House Appropriations Committee will take up a bill this week that would authorize $120 billion in additional spending to cover — among other things — the Iraq surge. Pelosi has known all along that refusing to fund the surge would be a political mistake, since it would open her Democrats to charges of defunding troops already in the field. At the same time, Pelosi’s liberal base — and much of her House majority — wants the war stopped, now. The bill tries to keep them happy by setting deadlines for troop withdrawals. President Bush would be told to certify in July, and then again in October, that the Iraqi government had met certain political and military benchmarks. The bill calls for withdrawing U.S. troops within 180 days if these benchmarks aren’t met (although Bush could waive them), and by September of 2008 no matter what. Democrats may also insert language “forbidding” the president to undertake military operations against Iran without congressional approval.

Although this doesn’t go as far as John Murtha’s proposal for readiness requirements that would have kept troops from deploying to Iraq, it is still a brazen attempt by the legislature to occupy executive territory. Congress hasn’t the power — and was not intended — to supervise the execution of military objectives, nor is its approval necessary for the commander-in-chief to use the armed forces as he sees fit. Congress can cut off funding from the military, and Pelosi has inched in that direction with this bill. Yet the bill does not actually exercise Congress’s power of the purse. It would expire at the end of September, and any actual defunding of Iraq operations — whether this year or next spring — would require the passage of additional legislation.

The bill does succeed in showing the emptiness of Pelosi’s claim that her Democrats support U.S. troops even as they oppose the war. The message is: We don’t believe you should be there; we don’t believe you can win (even as the surge shows early signs of progress); so be warned that we mean to pull the rug out from under you as soon as we can get away with it. Trying to avoid giving this impression, Pelosi has filled the bill with billions of dollars for veterans’ health care, new armored vehicles, and military operations in Afghanistan. But these gestures should — and probably will — ring hollow. They are on the order of buying a man a nice dinner after you have burned down his house.

Pelosi’s leftward lurch might backfire. Moderate House Democrats — many of whom won election in conservative districts — are not ready to declare Iraq a failure and give up. Pelosi may not be able to bring them together with the House’s unreformed liberals. If so, the spending bill will be defeated, and Pelosi will have succeeded only in alienating the moderate voters who delivered her speakership last fall. President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This would be a risk, since doing so might leave him without funds to fight the war; but the “let’s lose now” caucus — particularly in the Senate — is probably not big enough to force that choice upon him.

Regardless of the outcome, what cannot be doubted now is that the Democrats are the party of defeat in Iraq. They think the war is lost and are determined to block any effort to prove otherwise on the ground. We believe that the war is still worth trying to win, and that defeat would have long-lasting and dire strategic consequences for the U.S. But we’re glad the public is getting to see the Pelosi majority’s true colors.

True colors?  HA!! 

When are these lying scoundrels gonna learn that TRUE colors don't run?

Michelle Malkin has an update on the Obey-goes-postal encounter posted through-out the net this week. 

Seems Code Pink will be camping on Nancy Pelosi's doorstep until the super-speaker rounds up enough votes to get our troops out of Iraq.  STAT.

Wonder if Cindy will show up with her porta-potty and join them in camp songs?

Almost forgot this one ....... if you missed Maxine Waters on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, here's the transcript: 

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: This week, the House Democratic leadership announced a timetable to bring U.S. combat troops home from Iraq by September 2008. But many of the 75 members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus say that's not soon enough.

Joining us now from her home state of California, the chair of that caucus, Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Congresswoman, the bill being offered by House Democratic leaders continues funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it sets some conditions.

If the president doesn't certify that the Iraqi politicians are making progress, they can start to bring the troops home and, in any case, all combat troops would be out by September of 2008. Why isn't that soon enough for you?

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Well, there are a lot of bells and whistles in this bill. And they ask the president to not only certify, but begin in July by telling us whether or not progress has been made.

We have been listening to this president tell us about what he's doing and what's going on. We've been misled.

We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. We were told that we would be welcome with open arms. That's not the case.

We were told that we would get revenues from the oil fields that would help to repair the bombings that we had done in Iraq and in Baghdad in particular. That's not true.

So first of all, there's not a lot of trust. Secondly, we just voted a non-binding resolution that said we do not support the surge or the expansion, and now we're going to fund it?

We believe that we should use funding to safely exit our soldiers from Iraq with a well-thought-out exit plan. We believe that that can be done. We are not talking about doing it overnight.

We think a reasonable timetable would perhaps be by the end of the year, and we want to see a clean, straightforward bill.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, is the Democratic leadership — Speaker Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders — are they being too timid?

WATERS: Oh, I don't know if that's the way to describe it. You know, this is the kind of process where you have a lot of people who think differently about the issues.

And for those of us who feel that we should be out of Iraq, we have a responsibility to the people, and particularly since we know that the people want us out of Iraq. Not only do all the polls show it, this last election in November was an election to send people to Washington to help get us out of Iraq.

So those of us who feel strongly about it — we have to be good advocates. We have to speak for the people, and that's what we're doing.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, this week the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, was confronted by an antiwar protester who wanted him to vote against this spending bill that we're talking about here, which led to this exchange. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID R. OBEY, D-WIS.: It's time these idiot liberals understand that there's a hell of a difference between defunding the troops and ending the war. I'm not going to deny body armor. I'm not going to deny funding for veterans hospitals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Respectfully, Congresswoman, are you one of those — what Congresswoman Obey would call idiot liberals who would vote against this spending bill and thereby deny our troops body armor and medical care?

WATERS: I don't know. I think his language was quite unfortunate. That was a mother whose son has done two tours of duty in Iraq. He's apologized for having used that kind of language, and I would hope that he does not do that again.

I don't know what he thinks about my position and whether he would characterize me that way, but I would hope not.

WALLACE: But by voting against the spending bill, you would be voting against giving the troops body armor, against more funding for veterans and military hospitals.

WATERS: That's not true. That's absolutely not true. What you have in this bill is a requirement that the soldiers would be properly trained, they would have the proper equipment, and it basically backs the president up against the wall, and it dares him to use his waiver authority they give him.

Even though the bill says that's what we need, that's what we should have, then they say but, Mr. President, you can waive all of that if you want to. And of course, if he waives that, he has to go before the American people. It will make him look bad. That's one of the bells or the whistles in the bill.

I think we need a straight bill, vote up or down on the supplemental, and the only thing that I would say is use money in that supplemental to safely exit the soldiers out of Iraq.

WALLACE: Congresswoman — and I want to make it clear that you want to get all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, but you also make it clear you want to fund it, as you say, to make it safe, to make it thoughtful.

But let's talk about your policy and what would happen if all U.S. troops are out of Iraq by the end of 2007. Don't you worry about a possible — it's been called genocidal blood bath between the Sunnis and the Shia once we're out of there?

WATERS: Well, let me just say this. And I don't think there's any problem with leaving some of our soldiers what we call over the horizon, in Kuwait someplace, to help respond to a major catastrophe of some kind.

But don't forget, the Sunnis and the Shiites were getting along before we went in with our occupation, and I don't think that we can use the argument that if we're not there, it's going to be a bloodbath, or they can't manage to do what they were doing prior to our being there.

Much of what is happening ...

WALLACE: Well, but, Congresswoman, prior to our being there, Saddam Hussein was in charge. So that was what was keeping the Sunnis and Shia away from each other.

I mean, once we're out, we're not going to come back if the Sunni and the Shia start fighting with each other.

WATERS: Well, I don't think we can say the only way that Iraq can be stabilized is if Saddam Hussein was there. I think that they're developing new leadership. We have given support to new leadership.

And they have to find a way to get along. I don't think that we can say that in order for us to leave, we've got to somehow make sure that history — years of history of not getting along all of a sudden is changed and that we're going to have to stay there until it happens.

They are going to have to figure that out. We can support them, but we cannot stay there forever in the middle of this civil war.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, let's talk about another issue if we pull out by the end of this year. What about the danger that Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups will set up terrorist havens in western Iraq?

WATERS: Well, the first place, we should have been more focused on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We took our eye off the ball.

And we went after Saddam Hussein, a convenient target, because this president wanted to make sure that people understood he was fighting a war on terrorism and that was the best way to do it.

They knew that Saddam Hussein had a reputation for being a villain because he had invaded Kuwait before.

WALLACE: But Congresswoman, forgive me...

WATERS: But we should have been concentrating on Afghanistan.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, forgive me, though. I don't think you're — I understand that and that's a legitimate criticism, but it doesn't answer my question, which is we pull all our troops out of Iraq, as you would have under your measure, by December 2007 — what happens to Al Qaeda setting up terrorist safe havens in Anbar province?

WATERS: What happens if Al Qaeda decides to set up safe havens anywhere? Don't forget, there are cells in different places in the world. We have not done the job that we should be doing to find Usama bin Laden and to deal with Al Qaeda.

If we concentrate first on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, up around Tora Bora, where we know that we have a big concentration of activity of Al Qaeda, I think we'd do a much better job than concentrating all of our energy and our resources in Iraq.

WALLACE: Finally, we've got about — actually, less than a minute left.

What message do you think it would send to the terrorists around the world, to Iran, with its expansionist policies, if the U.S. showed that after a certain amount of time, a certain amount of loss of troops, that we were going to cut and run, that we were going to leave?

WATERS: Well, I think cut and run is a kind of language that has been used by this administration and others to intimidate those of us who are responding to the American people's desire to get our soldiers out of Iraq.

Our soldiers are dying every day. Civilians are dying by the thousands in Iraq. I just don't want to wake up one morning and find that they have bombed one of our compounds and hundreds of our soldiers had been killed.

We just saw a few weeks ago where they had a convoy that went past several checkpoints and went in to one of our areas and killed our soldiers. We don't have the cooperation there from the Iraqis.

Sunnis and Shiites alike that are in the military are all against us. They undermine us. They are not sticking with us during times of confrontation.

We don't need to have our soldiers in the middle of this civil war. It can't get any worse than this. And we need to get out before we have something of a major catastrophe happen to our soldiers.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Waters, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for coming in early today out on the west coast to talk with us. We appreciate it.

WATERS: Well, you're certainly welcome. Thank you.

How in hoopla are these idiots elected year after year after year?

The word is editing. 
And Salon (of all the high-brow critics) caught it.

Hat tip to the Sacred Cow crew for sharing the video link!

Wonder if Ann has seen it? 

Credit:  Powerline

"In standing by the United States... you have provoked those whom you call terrorists to target you," the man said in Arabic, with a German translation appearing on the screen as the flags of Germany and Austria appeared in front of a burning background.

I'm a bit more optimistic than Powerline about this ..... If Germany and Austria fold as did Spain, I'll be extremely disappointed. 

Read more at Powerline.

I've said it before and I repeat --  (and repeat)

Mitt Romney is the most credible, most consummate, most articulate candidate for the Presidency of the United States I've seen in my life-time. 

Doubt me?  Ask any other candidate to sit for an impromptu interview with at least two radio hosts. (Tennessee March 2007)

Video 1:

Video 2:

America needs Mitt Romney.

So forgive me or something, but I've never cared for the guy.  That guy from New York.  No, the other senator.  Schumer.  Don't particularly care for Imus, either.  But Imus did a number on Schumer the other morning and I just found a copy of the transcript.

Imus: Have you been aware, even since 1981, of the state of treatment that veterans have been receiving throughout the Veterans Administration hospitals?

Schumer: Yes, it’s gotten much worse in the last seven or eight years because the funding was just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. I get stories all the time of veterans wounded in Iraq, they get good treatment over in Iraq . . . The Veterans Administration has just been decimated in terms of funding and it’s unbelievable because . . . we ask these people to serve us and in the DoD part, at least in Iraq, and initially when they are wounded from all reports they are treated well, after that they are just sort of forgotten about and the VA is just in terrible shape, terrible shape . . . It’s a little like FEMA with Katrina. They put the wrong people in charge. They don’t really care.

Imus: Senator Schumer, you’re not suggesting to me that this is something that just happened under the Bush administration. This has been going on since Korea, since the second world war.

Schumer: It’s been going on for a while, but what happened with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that the system got completely overloaded and it really broke down.

Imus: We’ve known for years, certainly since 1981, that the care and the way that these veterans have been treated to a large degree, not because it’s the people’s fault — most of them, the doctors and nurses particularly at the Veterans Administration — but for a variety of reasons, in many cases, their treatment and care has been woefully inadequate.

The bureaucratic red tape has been a nightmare for a lot of these people, and that’s been going on for years, and my question is why haven’t any of you ever done anything about it?

Schumer: Well, we’ve tried. I’ve been fighting since I got to the Senate for full funding for the veterans, and we didn’t do any oversight. That’s the real problem here . . . I’ll tell you one other thing that will happen. We’ll get full funding for the VA this year, for the first time. We did actually, to show you a little bit that this isn’t just catching up to the crisis, we did a budget in early January . . .

Imus: Let me interrupt you for a second, but this is nonsense, Senator Schumer. I want to be respectful, but you can’t possibly be serious and suggest — I mean I’m not a fool. You can’t suggest to me that because the Democrats are now in power that something is going to be done about Walter Reed and about the mess in the Veterans Administration and all of this, and that if the Democrats hadn’t taken control of Congress that nothing would have been done. That’s preposterous; of course it would have.

Schumer: Well, something would have been done if the story would have gotten out . . .

Imus: Here’s another question. Have you ever been over to Walter Reed?

Schumer: Ahh, not in a while, no.

Imus: How long has it been since you’ve been over there?

Schumer: Oh, before Iraq.

Imus: So, before Iraq since you’ve been over to see the soldiers. So, we have elected you — first in the Congress and now in the Senate — and you’ve got a bill now to do something we’ll get to in a minute; but you haven’t even been to Walter Reed Hospital.

What a slime-ball.

Here's a YouTube video.  Wish we could see the yucker's face.

On second thought -- I don't want to see his face.  Again.

I've said it before and I repeat --

Mitt Romney is the most credible, most consummate, most articulate candidate for the Presidency of the United States I've seen in my life-time. 

Doubt me?  Ask any other candidate to sit for an impromptu interview with at least two radio hosts. (Tennessee March 2007)

Video 1:

Video 2:

America needs Mitt Romney.

Approx. 135,000 viewers have watched this chilling portrayal from 2008 ... errrrr ....1984.

Ohhhhhh, Big Sistah.
Deliver us.

Subtitled:  How to gain support on the home-front

So this is how the dims plan to gain support for their version of the Defense Spending Bill -- add on favorite projects ("pork") to appease the folks back home. 

It's plain that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums of money to the home front.

"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill.

Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion.

The funding — ranging from $3.5 billion for medical care for veterans and active duty troops to $500 million in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start — has raised hackles with Republicans who say Democrats are using the measure to muscle federal dollars back home.

"Wartime funding should be not used as a gravy train," said Senate GOP conservative Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire.

But Gregg said the White House would be hard-pressed to veto the bill over the add-ons, and White House aides have conspicuously failed to issue one — though a veto promise hangs over the bill because of its higher-profile provisions setting a deadline for ending the U.S. military role in Iraq.

All told, farmers would get $4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.

The drought disaster aid package has been scaled back, in part to make room for $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop. And Rep. Sam Farr (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., is pressing for $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak.

Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million.

Those items and others, including $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, offer virtually every lawmakers a reason to vote for the Iraq funding bill — regardless of their feelings on the war itself.

Democrats insist they aren't being bought off.

"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim Costa (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat representing a farm district in California's Central Valley. The California delegation is demanding help for citrus, avocado and other farmers facing $1.2 billion in losses from a devastating January freeze.

"I would support this one way or another," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., a driving force behind the drought aid package.

In some cases, such as drought aid for farmers, new money for veterans medical care and additional aid for the Gulf Coast, Democrats are fulfilling promises from last year's campaign.

Still, the need to maximize the vote count among Democrats makes it harder for party leaders to say "no" to lawmakers whose requests are, say, more parochial.

Republicans accused Democratic leaders of larding the bill with spending aimed at greasing its way through Congress.

"They've tried to appease every member of Congress, every coalition, every interest group, by loading this bill up," said Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill. He said the strategy risked having the bill collapse of its own weight.

"If this is a sweetener deal, then it makes me real sour on the whole bill," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record), D-Tenn.

There are a few lawmakers — such as Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. — whose support for war funding is contingent on add-ons. In DeFazio's case, it's $400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.

The billions of dollars not requested by Bush include $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic and $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor.

I don't know who will be willing to step up and highlight the pork attached to defense spending, but someone should.

Is Hillary Clinton the Walter Mitty of presidential candidates when she takes credit for the successes of her husband's presidency?

Lately, she's been repeatedly linking herself to Bill's job creation, budget balancing, economic programs and domestic policies initiatives. There's a lot of “Bill and I” and "we” in her speeches. It's all part of the “bring back the Clinton years” theme that she rolls out to Democratic Party audiences.

But there's more to it.

At the core of her highly disciplined campaign message is her claim that her “experience” in the White House and the Senate makes her uniquely qualified to move right into the Oval Office. According to Hillary, her two term co-presidency with Bill specially prepared her for the next Clinton administration and gives her exceptional credentials that no other candidate can match.

And her message is working — the most recent Gallup Poll shows that 45 percent of American voters cite Hillary's “experience” as the highest positive rating about her.

Out on the campaign trail, she often refers to her “eight years in the White House,” when asked why she should be elected.

So, what exactly was it that Hillary did in the Clinton White House that gave her all of that experience?

Well, obviously there was the health care fiasco, Hillary's secretive, expensive and utterly failed attempt to socialize the health care industry. Surely, she can't be referring to that.

So what is it that Hillary is referring to?

One would think that the $20 million combined memoirs of the former first couple could provide some clarification. But a careful reading of their respective stories leads to even more confusion. One wonders whether they ever read each other's work.

It seems that in her book "Living History," published in 2003, the former first lady doesn't really claim to have been an influential co-president working and learning at her husband's side after all.

No, that's all new.

And most of what she does take credit for involves traditional first lady issues, such as childcare and cancer research. She barely mentions any role for herself in the signature issues that confronted the Clinton presidency.

If you contrast her current claims of helping to run the country against her own writing about her White House days, there's a big difference. Now she speaks of the Clinton administration accomplishments, as if she were part of implementing them. But only four years ago, she told another story.

Bill doesn't seem to recall her help and involvement on too many issues. Even on those relatively few things that she actually does take credit for in her book, the former president doesn't have the same recollections that she does about her important role in the White House.

In her book, Hillary discusses her advocacy in the White House on social security, welfare reform, the bankruptcy reform bill, violence in the media, budget cuts and improvement in the Family and Medical Leave Act.

But, in his memoirs, Bill rarely mentions Hillary's role in any of his administration's policies, except for health care. One would have expected that he would have described some of the details of her unparalleled 'experience.'

In fact, of 102 mentions of Hillary in Bill Clinton's "My Life", the content is as follows:

• 34 entries describe trips taken by the first couple
• 26 entries are about Whitewater or other scandal investigations
• 17 entries are about their personal relationship
• 11 entries are about Hillary's integrity, character, her writing a book, supporting American crafts, etc.
• Nine entries describe her role in health care
• Only five entries concern a substantive role, including: participating in a White House staff gathering at Camp David; speaking out for women's rights in China; campaigning for child protection legislation; and campaigning for Democratic candidates, and the Millennium Project

That's it!

Here's some examples of how Hillary catalogued some of her work and how Bill described the same issue:

Welfare Reform : “I supported welfare reform and worked hard to round up the votes.”

• Bill makes no mention of her role concerning that important issue.

Media Violence and Children :“Bill and I … convened a White House strategy session on how to curb media violence directed at children.”

• Bill remembers it somewhat differently, crediting Al and Tipper Gore with a drive to get V chips in televisions. No mention of Hillary.

Budget Cuts :“I also spent two years helping … Stave off cuts in legal services, the arts, education, Medicare and Medicaid.”

• Bill makes no mention of Hillary in discussing the budget cuts.

Adoption Reform :“I worked hard … to spearhead adoption reform.”

• Bill writes about how proud he was about his “sweeping reforms of our adoption laws.” No mention of Hillary.

Child Support : “Bill and I wanted tougher child support collection efforts.”

• Bill describes signing another of his priorities into law. No mention of Hillary.

Hillary's self-portrait should remind voters of a dog who finally catches a car ....