PELOSI THREATENS PRESIDENT ON "ESCALATION"

That’s essentially the message she wanted to convey according to this SF Chronicle article. Here’s what ms. Pelosi said while in San Francisco:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, returning to her hometown of San Francisco, strongly warned today that President Bush “should not abuse his power” with regard to troop escalation in the Iraq war and said it is the duty of Congress to “exercise oversight over his power…If the president doesn’t have a plan, Democrats will hold him accountable,” Pelosi said in her first public appearance outside Washington since her election as speaker Jan. 4.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney were undeterred by Pelosi’s attempted power grab. A Constitutional scholar should remind Ms. Pelosi that Congress has the power to declare war and control the budget but it doesn’t have the power to set policy. Neither does it have the authority to execute military policy on a tactical or strategic level. That’s a power given exclusively to the executive branch. Vice President Cheney gives the reason why:

Cheney was even sharper, telling Fox News that “you cannot run a war by committee,” and pointedly suggesting the Democrats don’t have a plan for Iraq.

The Founding Fathers gave the President the title and responsibility of Commander-In-Chief. They knew that there couldn’t be order or accountability if war-making was put in the hands of Congress.

Furthermore, after Congress has authorized the President to wage war, it’s impossible by definition for the President to abuse his powers to wage war. Ms. Pelosi’s power cravings notwithstanding, the fact is that her role in this war is limited at best.

The truth is that she’s limited to cutting off funds to the troops. If she isn’t willing to do that, then all that’s left is for her to huff and puff but it won’t mean anything.

There’s another thing that she’d better consider. If she brings up a Sense of the House Resolution, then she’d best hope that she doesn’t lose that vote. Losing that type of vote would diminish her even further as the woman who couldn’t get things right. Believe it or not, that’s the best case scenario. If that resolution passes, she’d pretty much be throwing all of the freshmen who ran as hawks under the bus. If they have to vote for the resolution, then they’ll lose in 2008.
Cheney needled ‘Mother’ Pelosi by suggesting that Democrats don’t have a plan. Here’s how ‘Mother’ responded:

“We have a plan, and he knows it,” Pelosi said today as she was mobbed by well-wishers following her keynote address at the 22nd annual holiday breakfast.

To be intellectually honest, I must admit that Democrats don’t have a plan; they’ve got several plans. Of course, none consider winning an option, which should be our first priority. Their plans include these options: cut and run, cut and jog, cut and walk. Of course, my favorite is Murtha’s ‘plan’ to redeploy to Okinawa. Gotta love those rapid response redeployments to someplace half a world away.

BUSH GIVES DEMS THE FINGER

Well it's about time. Appearing on '60 Minutes' Sunday night, President Bush said Congress cannot reverse his decision to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq. He also says the Democrats should put up or shut up: "It's my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed." Where was this George Bush 2 years ago?

Democrats are howling about the White House's new plan for the war in Iraq, but not a single one of them has come forward with their own plan. Well .. that's not entirely true. We do have the Democrat plan for "phased redeployment." And that's just fancy talk for withdrawal. The Democrats know that the public doesn't like words like "withdrawal" or "retreat." They had to come up with another word, - perhaps one with a military flavor, that would mean the same thing. They settled on "redeployment." This is reminiscent of the Democrat effort to come up with another word for "spending." They knew the public wouldn't react well to suggestions that we needed to increase spending on this, that or the other program. The Democrats needed a new word for "spending." They found one. Now you'll hear them talking about "investing" rather than "spending." It sounds so much better when you say "We need to invest more in our public schools," then it does when you speak of "spending more."

Other than cutting and running, the Democrats have nothing. They never have. All of the Democratic freshmen in Congress that ran against the war got there because they railed against the administration. But they have no plan.

So it's about time our commander in chief has gotten it right. We are trying to win the war, after all. So it will be interesting to see if the Democrats meet Bush's challenge. Will they really try to stop his plan for Iraq? Nope..and Bush knows it. He knows he has the upper hand. It's nice to see him finally using it.

BUSH TO DEMS: WHAT'S YOUR IRAQ PALN?

Well, finally…

AP reports: “President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

“To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” Bush said.

Bush said lawmakers “have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success.”

That’s both fair and reasonable. But liberals are neither.

“Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy,” [Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn.] said in the Democrats’ Saturday radio address.

So, moving beyond the rhetoric of “asking tough questions”, perhaps Democrats can do something that would actually show leadership: Propose something better. Present a plan.

THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN

The NY Times has resumed their never-ending quest of helping our terrorist enemies. Here’s their latest attempt to undermine national security:

The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering. (Ed.- emphasis added)

The CIA has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

Notice that this isn’t taking in hundreds of thousands of names. It says that it’s been done on “hundreds of Americans.” That’s hardly being abusive. In fact, I’d argue that it’s rather restrained.

I expect John Conyers to take this up in his committee. This paragraph says why he’s interested in it:

Government lawyers say the legal authority for the Pentagon and the CIA to use national security letters in gathering domestic records dates back nearly three decades and, by their reading, was strengthened by the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

I’ve written a few times lately about Conyers’ desire to gut the Patriot Act. Don’t think that he won’t see this as a perfect opportunity to exploit.

I’d further suggest that the credibility of this reporting is suspect because we’re getting this information leaked. If there’s anything that makes me suspicious of a report, it’s when the information was acquired through a snitch with an agenda.

If the government’s lawyers are right that the Patriot Act strengthened the use of national security letters, then it’s reasonable to assume that there’s regular oversight done on this program. If that’s the case, then we don’t need to read about it in the NY Times.

I’d further add that it’s suspicious that Eric Lichtblau, one of the reporters that exposed the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, another important tool in preventing terrorist attacks, is one of the reporters for this article. Does the NY Times hire Mr. Lichtblau each time they want to tell terrorists about the tools the U.S. is using in preventing terrorist attacks? Or do they just keep such subversives on payroll for use during Republican administrations?

Obviously, they didn’t use the likes of Mr. Lichtblau to expose Bill Clinton’s Echelon program. Furthermore, they didn’t use Mr. Lichtblau to write about Bill Clinton’s use of warrantless searches in other cases. Are we to believe that that’s pure coincidence? Or should we just believe that the NY Times has it in for Republicans? They certainly don’t have it in for Democrats.

It’s time we got rid of reporters with such a history of undermining our war efforts. He’s potentially endangering millions of lives with his reporting. That isn’t reporting; it’s subversion.

DEMS RESPOND TO BUSH 'SURGE SPEECH'

President Bush said in his prime time speech to the nation Wednesday evening that changes are coming to the strategy in Iraq. The full text of the speech is here.

The Democratic response to the President’s speech was given by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. FULL TEXT HERE. Turning on a political dime, Durbin now says our troops are courageous, praising them for their “immense sacrifice”. In June 2005, however, Durbin compared our “courageous” soldiers to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags and Pol Pot.

Durbin quoted GEN Abizaid, commander of CENTCOM Middle East, which includes Iraq, saying, “More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future,” end of quote. Yet GEN Abizaid also told the Congress in November that all options were on the table and he ruled nothing out. In fact, when Abizaid said he felt troop levels should stay where they were, Abizaid was accused by Democrats of promoting the status quo.

The worst part of Durbin’s asinine assertions are about Iraqis themselves:

And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We’ve given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government.

We Americans, and a few allies, have protected Iraq when no one else would.

WE? WE have given Iraqis so much? WE deposed their dictator? WE gave them a chance? WE have protected Iraq when no one else would? Since when have the Democrats protected Iraqis? If “no one else” isn’t the Democrats, who is? “No one” has stood more opposed to Iraqi freedom beside insurgents and terrorists than the Democratic Party. Even Iran and Syria side with Democrats in opposition to President Bush’s plan to bring resolution to Iraq. When Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004, it’s pretty clear who is on the side of the Iraqis and who isn’t. If it were up to Democrats, Saddam would still be on his throne, torturing his people and living well from bribes and kickbacks from the United Nations.

Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi, and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.

Apparently Mr. Durbin doesn’t know how long it took for America to stand and defend herself or how long she battled against the “insurgency” born out of the American civil war called the KKK. Left wing Democrats launched a “reign of terror” against Republican leaders both black and white at the end of the civil war. The KKK was literally a terrorist group that came from the left wing of the Democratic party. 141 years later, the KKK is petering out. How long does Mr. Durbin afford Iraqis to rid themselves of their death squads and militias?

When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open-ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops indeed are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation.

If anyone understands this it’s the Iraqis, not the Democrats. In reality, Iraqis have stood up for themselves and defended their nation since the beginning. They’ve challenged terrorists armed with nothing more than a purple finger in three historic elections. They’ve lined up outside police and military stations to serve their country knowing they could be targets of suicide bombers. They’ve worked with Coalition Forces to turn in insurgents and terror suspects in trying to reclaim their neighborhoods, supplying our best intelligence at great risk to themselves.

“The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that, every time they call 911, we are not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers.”

What utterly contemptible ignorance! Sen. Durbin might recall that Iraqis counted on the U.N. to be the world’s 911, but their hopes were crushed when the U.N. crawled into bed with Saddam under the guise of the Oil for Food program. Iraqis hold only Saddam Hussein in greater contempt. It was America, compliments of the Bush administration, that did what the U.N. was supposed to do in enforcing the resolutions that the world’s “911″ refused to. If Democrats have their way, it won’t be long before Iraq knows it can never count on the U.S. again. That’s a win-win for Democrats.

Democrats might want to remember that they also voted for this war in Iraq and that they share an equal obligation to support the war effort. To do anything else is morally and politically wrong. While the United States under the Bush administration deposed Saddam Hussein, it also totally gutted the Iraqi government from the inside out and it is the obligation of the United States of America to help rebuild Iraq and support a people who have been victimized by a dictator, exploited by the world’s “911″ and forgotten by everyone else.

It is not U.S. involvement in Iraq that has created more terrorists, but solidarity the Democratic party has shown America’s enemies. By May 2006, Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq admitted they were losing the war in Iraq. They claimed in written documents to be outnumbered, outwitted, inept, and that their mission was “getting worse year after year” because of Iraqi and US resolve and resiliency. Al-Qaeda admitted trying to divide and conquer Iraq through sectarian violence and that “American investment in (Iraq) was not in vain.” By June 2006, Iraq had al-Qaeda on the run and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said:

“We believe that this is the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq. (These documents show that al-Qaeda) is in pretty bad shape. Now we have the upper hand.”

So what happened? Joe Wilson conducted a false public campaign challenging the premise that Saddam had sought uranium from Nigeria so as to undermine the President’s claim in the State of the Union address 2003 that Saddam was indeed seeking to build a WMD program. In fact, Wilson admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 that he “misspoke” about the uranium procurement. Based on this lie, Democrats then began an all out political campaign to discredit the war and with extreme left wing anti-war groups began to give hope to the terrorists and insurgents. With every passing month that John Murtha, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et al, proclaiming the demise of Iraq, the failure of America and the success of the terrorists, more and more “willing martyrs” signed up for al-Qaeda training camps or sectarian militias. Who wouldn’t want to be on the winning side?

Durbin said a troop surge in Iraq is not what Americans voted for in the November mid-term elections, giving Iraqis more cause for concern. The enemies of Iraqi freedom are encouraged now more than ever and believe they can simply wait out U.S. withdrawal. This undermines Iraqi confidence that the U.S. will see through the mission, putting Iraqis in a position to align themselves with groups looking to inherit the power the United States is leaving behind.

The Democratic Party is the party of “choice”, yet despite the exceeded re-enlistment and recruitment rates by every branch in the United States military in 2006, liberals seek to take away the choice of Americans in uniform. These brave Americans believe in this mission and volunteer to fight this enemy in Iraq to prevent another 9/11. Instead of condoning the choice of the soldier to finish this job, they sabotage it. Liberals say they don’t always agree with a woman’s choice to kill her unborn child, yet they support her right to do so. It’s no wonder soldiers don’t believe Democrats really support them.

President Bush said in his speech:

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

It’s clear what Prime minister al-Maliki understands: there is no change in Iraq but retreat and withdrawal that can satisfy the Democrats and they now have a majority in the House and Senate. The only hope for Iraq is rapid response to counter the Democrats sabotaging of Iraq’s destiny.

MINIMUM WAGE DOUBLE STANDARD

As part of their first 100 hours plan, Democrats are pushing a hike in the minimum wage. It's going to happen, with several Republicans and even President Bush prepared to go along with it. But did you know that American Samoa...a Democrat stronghold...is being exempted from the minimum wage increase?

And just what are the reasons being given for this? According to the chairman of the House, Education and Labor Committee, Democrat George Miller of California, the economy of American Samoa doesn't have the ability to handle the United States' minimum wage and should be exempt. Nice try...want to know the real reason? The answer is the tuna industry and like the product itself, this one stinks to high heaven.

The average wage for tuna workers in American Samoa is $3.60 an hour. One of the biggest employers there is Starkist Tuna...which is headquartered in San Francisco...Nancy Pelosi land. Anybody care to take a closer look at the campaign contributions of Democrats in the last election? One thing is for sure, the delegate from American Samoa, a Democrat, is loaded down with campaign cash from the tuna industry.

So there you have it...a double standard. On the one hand, we're told you can't raise a family on $5.15 an hour and the minimum wage must be raised to $7.25 an hour. But for the right price in campaign contributions, the tuna industry in American Samoa can avoid the minimum wage altogether...they just have to stuff the pockets of the right Democrats. Where is the media on this one?

Will the press be taking a closer look at Nancy Pelosi's campaign finance disclosures? Probably not. But somebody will.