Once again, Republicans in Congress and the White House are apt to point out that Democrats in Congress are the problem while Bush and his failed policies are the solution.

(Source)
To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration’s policy to work, she said, “We have already waited too long.”

Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill “undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe,” said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. “What we have here is not leadership, it’s negligence.”

Five years into a war that was over after three months, the Democrats have decided enough is enough. For five years all we have heard from the president is, “Give us time for the plan to work.” Even after missing his own deadlines all we could ever get, and still get, is, “Give us time for the plan to work.” You’ve had plenty of time, Mr. President. You’re a failure. Everyone except you knows it and you refuse to listen. It’s time for a new plan.

The response?

(more…)

Do we really need another vision? The president has had so many visions one could conclude that he is going blind. The latest? Wow:

Such a reduced mandate would resemble the vision advanced in December by the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat. A Pentagon study last year con cluded that even the more limited mission would require 120,000 U.S. troops, compared with about 160,000 today. But administration officials said it could be done with between 60,000 and 100,000 troops.

I just love when a plan falls together.

News and Media Blog

(Source) Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and the power to impeach. Instead of using either, members of congress are wasting their time discussing feckless measures like a bill that “de-authorizes the war in Iraq.” That is toothless unless it is matched by a cut-off of funds….

I’ve written about this before. Congress is simply showing itself to have no backbone. Once again, the American people have elected a group of scalawags and weasels who have nothing better to do than vote themselves a pay raise and debate how to win the next election. The American people need to send a strong message to all elected officials: Boycott Elections!

Until we get legislators who legislate, a chief executive that doesn’t, and judges that make decisions based on the rule of law then we will never be the country our forefathers envisioned. Alexander Hamilton may have been gunned down by a vice president with a big ego and a good aim, but he’s alive and well in Washington in 2007. Until we resurrect Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and the Great Jefferson, don’t expect American elected representatives to live up to the legacy these men left us. We’ve squandered it and, as Benjamin Franklin prophesied, we don’t deserve freedom or liberty. Oh, and guess what? We’ve lost the Republic. Where’s your national pride now?

News and Media Blog

by Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas)

Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.

More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .

According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States .

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill. Learn more about Ron Paul at http://www.ronpaul2008.com.

News and Media Blog

Douglas Lute, picked by U.S. President George W. Bush to oversee the Iraq war policy, said on Thursday that he sees withdrawing troops as an option to pressure the Iraqi government to make changes.

Why is it that all the generals want to withdraw but the civilian leadership wants to “stay the course.” No one else quite knows what the course is. But, we damn sure can’t abandon it. That would be tucking our tails and no self-respecting American should ever do that. Even if it means losing his freedom.

News and Media Blog

According to a poll by the University of Maryland’s Project on International Public Policy Attitudes, majorities of all three of Iraq’s major ethno-sectarian groups support a unified Iraq with a strong central government. For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though (in the case of Baghdad residents), they expect the security situation to deteriorate in the short term as a result.

That Iraqis want the U.S to leave their country isn’t necessarily nationalism, but it does mean that Iraqis - like most Americans - would prefer to be left alone to their own devices. In other words, “Don’t tread on me” could be the Iraqi motto. That was Ben Franklin’s proposed motto for the American states. Sound familiar?

Our beloved president once asked, “Where is their George Washington, their Patrick Henry?” That’s a paraphrase. But I have an answer. Maybe he’s one of those lawmakers who signed the petition and will step forward to lead his country after the imperial occupiers step out of the way.

Petraeus said recently that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require “an enormous commitment” over time by the United States.

This should have been apparent by the end of 2003 to anyone paying attention to the Iraq War. It was very apparent before the war began to anyone who understands the Middle East region. But the Bush Administration at least deserves the benefit of a doubt. They got it, but then squandered it by claiming that the war would be over in virtually no time. Finally, around the time frame of, oh, 2006-2007, Bush and Cheney figured out that we will be Iraq for quite some time. I think the rest of the nation knows it as well - that is, unless the Democratic Party has its way.

I don’t think, personally, the Dems will win on this. We all know it would hurt U.S. credibility to pull out of Iraq before the mission - any mission - is successfully completed. Unfortunately, there’s no real definition of mission. Never has been. If the Bush Administration would simply define an objective then they might win some points from some corner of the globe, although which corner remains to be seen. As it is now, we are - as predicted - locked into a quagmire and the only way out is to trust the untrustworthy souls who got us there in the first place. Yes, Gen. Petraeus - like so many others before - is absolutely right. We will be there a long time and things will get worse before they get better. That’s what it’s like when you are stuck between Iraq and hard place.

News and Media Blog

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” (Harry) Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

It’s interesting that the leader of the Democratic majority in Congress has declared the war in Iraq lost. It’s not over, yet. We’re still there. We may be losing, depending on how you define ‘losing,’ but lost? Not really.

By the same token, no one complained when the Commander in Chief prematurely declared the war won either. That clearly wasn’t the case, was it?

Now, Bushites like Rich Lowry are criticizing Reid for his remark of equal idiocy. Can you smell the irony?

(more…)

The church service and weekend protests drew John Pattison, 29, from Portland, Oregon, to his first anti-war rally. He said his opposition to the war had developed over time.

“Quite literally on the night that shock and awe commenced, my friend and I toasted the military might of the United States,” Pattison said. “We were quite proud and thought we were doing the right thing.”

He said the way the war had progressed and U.S. foreign policy since then had forced him to question his beliefs.

Why hasn’t anyone asked Pattison if he has served in the military? He is obviously of military age and at one time supported the war. If he supported the war then he should have volunteered to serve. It doesn’t matter that he’s against it now. I don’t respect his opinion either way.

Several news sources quoted him, including this website about “Everything Oregon.” Yet not one of them asked Pattison, or any other person who was ever for the war, whether they had volunteered to serve. If a man is willing to travel thousands of miles to march against a war then he’d better be willing to put on his combat boots for a war he supports. Otherwise, he’s nothing more than a pansy, a patsy for a cause he harbored doubts for in the first place. Without the conviction of action, support or protest is simply bloated blather. In my book, such opinions don’t count.

News and Media Blog

The new US commander in Iraq has admitted that insurgents have intensified their attacks during the security crackdown in Baghdad, as he warned that there was no military solution to the nation’s bloody conflict.

Wait a minute … No military solution? Isn’t that what all the top generals have said so far? The first one who said lost his job. Does that mean Petraeus should have worries? How many humpty dumpties must there be before the Bush Administration finally gets a clue?

News and Media Blog