Mohammed Fadhil notes that many Baghdadis are voting with their feetin terms of the success of the ongoing battle to pacify the war-torn city. The stream of refugees out of the city has dropped and in some cases reversed as visible signs of US power continue to intimidate militants and US and Iraqi strikes continue to debilitate the enemy’s ability to strike.
The problem is that even a successful campaign can’t completely stop the violence in Baghdad. Such atrocities as the recent market bombing don’t signal that the “insurgency” is winning, just that such tactics are too easy to pull off. It takes no skill to load a car full of explosives and detonate it in a crowd — and we’re going to see things like that happening for quite a while.
We should have been doing this earlier, but late is better than never. We’re taking the right steps to get Iraq under control, but it’s a race against time as the political will back home continues to erode. The lesson of this war may well be that the supreme bravery of our soldiers is no match for the weakness of our national character — and that is something that should be of concern to this country even after this war has become history.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) gave this address on the House floor, one that has been making the rounds lately and is well worth noting here:
It is not courageous to be against this war — that is now the majority position. It takes real courage to admit the consequences of our actions now, and Rep. Johnson is one of the few who has the political courage to say what’s right. We urgently need more of his kind at this crucial moment in our history.
Someone should remind John Murtha (D-PA) that he’s not the Commander in Chief of the US military, as he’s on a one-man mission to force the US to surrender in Iraq. Not only is it borderline treason to attempt to deliberately hamper the mission of our troops abroad, but Murtha is essentially attempting to wrest control of the war powers placed deliberately in the hands of the Executive by the Founding Fathers.
Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said.
Mr. Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq “would be more stable with us out of there,” in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce “massive civilian casualties.” He says he wants to force the administration to “bulldoze” the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to “get our troops out of the Green Zone” because “they are living in Saddam Hussein’s palace”; could he be unaware that the zone’s primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?
The idea that a member of Congress representing one district should be able to steer the course of American military policy is abhorrent to the Constitution. Congress does have the power of the purse, but with that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely.
What Congressional Democrats are essentially doing is selling our troops short, and it is absolutely reprehensible.
What makes it even more reprehensible is that Congress doesn’t have the integrity to even admit the reality of what the radical left is trying to do — Murtha is forced to play games with the lives of our troops in order to ensure failure in Iraq.
The purpose of this is to destroy the Bush Administration — the reality is that a failure in Iraq would create a humanitarian disaster of nightmare scale, set a precedent that would be deeply destructive to the American military, and also ensure that future Presidents — Democrat or Republican — can see their ability to conduct American military policy sacrificed on the altar of political expediency at any time.
What is happening now presents a serious crisis to the American system of government, and the blindly partisan Democrats are too focused on their own petty political interests to understand the ramifications of their actions. Indeed, Rep. Murtha seems to be dangerously uninformed about the situation in Iraq. Is he truly so foolish as to believe that Iraq would be better off were the US to leave?
The future of this country cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency — and Murtha must be reigned in before his crusade ends up undermining US policy for years to come.
Strickland, a Democrat who opposed the war as a U.S. House member, said Ohioans cannot be expected to have open arms for Iraqis displaced by the war. More than 100 Ohioans have been killed since the war began.
“I think Ohio and Ohioans have contributed a lot to Iraq in terms of blood, sweat and too many tears,” Strickland said. “I am sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Iraqi people who have fled that country. However, I would not want to ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden than they already have borne for the Bush administration’s failed policies.”
Strickland’s comments are incredibly racist. Gov. Strickland has no power to dictate where Iraqi refugees can or cannot settle, and it’s repugnant beyond all belief for him to try.
This is how disgustingly inhuman the anti-war movement has become — Gov. Strickland would deny refuge to innocent Iraqi refugees, men and women who have put their lives on the line to help secure a better future for their country and save the lives of our servicemembers, just because of his personal political disagreements with the President on this war.
What’s worse is that Gov. Strickland is a former minister. Apparently he’s turned his back on his most basic of Christian values in favor of political posturing.
U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman would win easily if he ends up facing comedian Al Franken in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race in 2008, according to an exclusive 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS/SURVEY USA poll.
The popular comedian announced that he would seek the seat Wednesday on the last episode of his radio show.
The poll shows Coleman getting 57 percent of the vote and Franken getting 35 percent.
The poll also looked at a possible matchup between Coleman and attorney Mike Ciresi, who is also expected to seek the DFL nomination. Coleman also wins that match by a margin of 57 to 34.
The margin of error on the poll is +/- 3.9 percent; 632 registered voters were polled on Feb. 12 and Feb. 13.
For one, since when has Al Franken been either a comedian (at least intentionally) or popular?
Franken’s numbers will improve — the DFL could put a dead marmot up for election and most of the Twin Cities would vote for it, but not by all that much. The reality remains that Al Franken just isn’t the sort of person who makes a good politician — and all it takes is one instance of blowing one’s lid to demonstrate it in front of the entire electorate. (And if you don’t buy that, ask Mike Hatch…)
Coleman’s a talented politician, and he’s been careful not to associate himself too closely with the Bush Administration — he opposed drilling in ANWR, he supported the Warner/Levin Amendment on Iraq, and he’s hardly a staunch conservative. However, he is conservative enough that Republicans will still support him (as 94% in this poll do), but not so conservative as to alienate moderates.
Coleman also has the benefit of the free publicity of the Republican National Convention in 2008, which is a powerful incentive as well.
Franken may be more of a serious candidate that I’d first thought, but he’s got a long way to go before he even gets the DFL nomination — and Mike Ciresi has the money to pull off a serious challenge. I’m not convinced that the DFL will see Franken as being in their best interest, and Franken may not even get the chance to run against Coleman — at least as an endorsed DFL candidate.
Al Franken has officially announced his run for Senate in 2008 and produced this video announcement:
As much as it pains me to say it, this was probably one of the better campaign announcements I’ve ever seen.
Franken’s not a dumb guy. He knows that the meticulously polished, scripted, and controlled campaign speeches that everyone else does won’t fly for him. So instead, he chose to be conversational, sounding like he’s just sitting down and explaining himself. The fact that it sounds so unscripted (and I’m presuming that it really is) helps sell Franken as a viable candidate.
Franken explains his liberalism in a way that’s conversational and appealing. If this is the only Al Franken we get during the campaign, Senator Coleman is going to have one hell of a job keeping his seat.
Franken’s big problem is that the Al Franken we see in this announcement is not the real Al Franken. As Ed Morrissey explains:
Despite being a Minnesota native, he seems far too obnoxious to gain a following in this state. People here talk about Minnesota Nice, where people remain pleasant and mind their manners even when they encounter unpleasantness. Franken is the opposite, attacking his political opponents in mean-spirited, schoolyard epithets. That might sell in New York, where Franken lived most of his adult life, although he seems a little too strong even for the Big Apple, but that kind of temperament will only appeal to the most hard-core, left-wing voters in this state.
Sooner or later, that Al Franken will come out. If the only side of him we see is the side he displays in this announcement, I’d give him good odds at winning. However, there’s a world of difference between sitting down in front of a camera and speaking and having to deal with the rough-and-tumble world of politics. Franken is an actor, he knows how to play a role, but politics is different than Saturday Night Live.
Still, I will give Franken this, his announcement was excellent. He and his advisors crafted a powerful message, and Franken made it work. It gives him the level of respectability that he needs to get his campaign off the ground. Ultimately, I don’t think it will be enough, but Franken has demonstrated that he has the ability to be a great communicator. In terms of political rhetoric, Franken just hit his first home run. It may not win him the game, but it certainly puts him off to a strong start.
John Fund has an interesting look at the impact of libertarianism on American politics. One of the larger factors behind the GOP’s loss in the 2006 elections is the way in which libertarian voters stayed home, disgusted with profligate spending in Congress. While social conservatives get all the press, libertarian-leaning conservatives are also a substantial voting bloc within the GOP, and the Republican Party hasn’t done nearly as well at speaking to their interests.
It seems likely that libertarianism will be a part of American politics for some time, albeit probably not a part of the mainstream. The libertarian tradition does descend directly from the classical liberal traditions of Locke and Mill, and the American experience tends to produce a libertarian outlook in people. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the “closing of the American frontier” (to borrow from Frederick Jackson Turner) happened to preface the rise in American statism under the New Deal. An urban society is more likely to want big government than a rural one, and the American frontier mentality tends to be strongest in the libertarian red states than the statist blue states.
Libertarians are an under-appreciated bloc within American politics, but they have had their impact. Dozens of races were decided based on the libertarian vote, and GOP strategists would be wise to do better in appealing to those for whom smaller government is a key issue — even some on the Left are trying to make appeals to libertarians (albeit with very little success). The future of American politics may swing upon those 10-15% of the electorate who hold libertarian views, even if they don’t identify themselves as libertarians. In an electoral climate where a swing of just a few percentage points can have far-reaching consequences, neither party can afford to ignore the voices of this key electoral minority.