Drip, drip, drip

All week long there has been a steady drip of criticism of the commanding General in Iraq. Congress has released their own reports on progress in Iraq (talk about armchair quarterbacking), the leadership has taken every turn to bash the general and his motives and finally there is this from our friends at MoveOn.org.

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to
Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in
the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General
Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Emphasis mine. Now throughout the debate, anytime a supporter of the war dared to even remotely raise the "patriotism" angle, they were jumped on by the left with cries of "don't you dare question our patriotism". Yet here they are accusing the lead General in Iraq of "betraying the American people" . Why is it ok then for those who oppose the war to question the patriotism of the man who is running the war effort?

It is one thing to have a debate on policy. It is one thing to have disagreements on the direction of the war and the country. It is another thing to accuse a General of treason which is what the MoveOn ad does. Come on guys. Let's dial back the hysterical rhetoric and talk like adults. OK?

When up is down

Senator John Warner came back from Iraq this week and gave a press conference. What he said depends on who is reporting the story.


"Sen. John W. Warner, one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security, called on President Bush yesterday to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in time for Christmas as a new intelligence report concluded that political leaders in Baghdad are "unable to govern effectively."


National Reveiw's Byron York (speaking on Laura Ingraham's show on Thursday) said that the Senator actually called for a "token" withdrawal but also said that he would not vote for the Levin Measure (which calls for a withdrawl date to be set) or in anyway against President Bush's conduct of the war.

"Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress."

While Senator Warner did send a very mixed message in his press conference, the media's slanted reporting again showed the world that they are no longer the "unbiased watchdogs" that they used to be.

Iraq vets respond to the NY Times

Last Sunday, the New York Times ran an op-ed that was written by 7 soldiers serving in Iraq. Lest you suffer from heart failure over the prospect, let me be swift to reassure you that the op-ed said just what the Times has been saying about the war all along. A couple of days later, 7 more soldiers who served in Iraq (including Minnesota's own Peter Hegseth and David Thul) submitted a rebuttal to the New York Times.


"ON SUNDAY, seven soldiers from the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Iraq penned a passionate opinion piece in the New York Times that further illustrates the complexity of what is "really" happening in Iraq. Of the almost 3,000 soldiers from the Army's storied 82nd Airborne Division currently serving in the hottest of Iraqi neighborhoods, seven felt confident enough in their misgivings to sign an opinion piece. They should not be surprised that many of their comrades--including the seven undersigned here--find their work to be misguided.


The 2nd Brigade is responsible for two dangerous areas of Baghdad: Adihamiyah and Sadr City. Airborne troopers there have seen the worst al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army can throw at them and the Iraqi people. But the whole story is that the Iraqis and soldiers in their sector have not yet been fully affected by the surge of troops and operations, which have barely been in place two months.


Currently, American and Iraqi Forces are clearing sections of southern Baghdad before turning north to the 82nd Airborne's neighborhoods. As such, the portrait these soldiers painted, while surely accurate and honest, is more representative of pre-surge Baghdad: sectarian strife, lawlessness, and indiscriminate slaughter.


This is not, however, the picture elsewhere in Iraq, or even most of Baghdad. Additional American combat brigades first surged to the outlying areas around the capital, disrupting the flow of suicide bombers and car bombs and denying haven to al Qaeda.


The result? Attacks against civilians are at a six-month low and large al Qaeda-style truck and suicide bombings have dropped 50 percent in Baghdad. With additional troops and a sound strategy, the same results can occur in even the worst areas of Baghdad, including the 82nd Airborne's sector.


Take Anbar Province. In 2006, al Qaeda controlled the capital of Ramadi and Marine intelligence officers declared the province effectively lost. A leaked Marine Corps report concluded, "the prospects for securing western Anbar province are dim and there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there."


Today Ramadi is peaceful and Anbar no longer a haven for al Qaeda. The tribal awakening that brought about political reconciliation and stability in Ramadi and Anbar primarily resulted from an improved security environment provided by American forces. Americans not only cleared Ramadi, they also held it by occupying over 65 outposts.


This security environment allowed local tribal leaders to stand up to their former al Qaeda occupiers, and now American and Iraqi forces are improving security beyond Anbar in places like Diyala and Babil Provinces.


The 82nd Airborne soldiers quoted an Iraqi saying, "We need security, not free food." We could not agree more, and what American and Iraqi forces are doing now--for the first time in this war--is providing lasting security at the neighborhood level after driving insurgents out."


David Bellavia, Pete Hegseth, Michael Baumann, Carl Hartmann, David Thul, Knox Nunnally and Joe Dan Worley all served with either the Army or Marine Corps in Iraq and are all members of Vets for Freedom. Surprising, their op-ed was originally submitted to the New York Times, which declined to publish it.



Please go read the whole thing to see what the dinosaur media refuses to tell you.

VietNam?

President Bush gave a speech the other day about the war in Iraq. Perhaps you saw the headlines...

"Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam" declared the Washington Post, ABC News and others. However a more truthful, nuanced headline on the speech can be found at the New York Times (yes I said the NYTimes had a more truthful take on the speech). Even our own Star Tribune was a little closer to the mark.

Military historian Max Boot, writing for the Wall Street Journal, comments that the President's remarks were "incomplete" and fills in the missing gaps.

"The problem with Mr. Bush's Vietnam analogy is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is incomplete. As he noted, "The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech." If he chooses to return to the subject in future speeches, there are some other parallels he could invoke:
• The danger of prematurely dumping allied leaders. A chorus of voices in Washington, led by Sens. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton, is calling on Iraqis to replace Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Even Mr. Bush and his ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, have expressed disappointment with Mr. Maliki. They have been careful, however, to refrain from any calls for his ouster. That's wise, because we know from our experience in Vietnam the dangers of switching allied leaders in wartime...The danger of winning militarily and losing politically. In 1968, after Gen. Creighton Abrams took over as the senior U.S. military commander in South Vietnam, he began to change the emphasis from the kind of big-unit search-and-destroy tactics that Gen. William Westmoreland had favored, to the sort of population-protection strategy more appropriate for a counterinsurgency. Over the next four years, even as the total number of American combat troops declined, the communists lost ground... The danger of allowing enemy sanctuaries across the border. This a parallel that Mr. Bush might not be so eager to cite, because in many ways he is repeating the mistakes of Lyndon Johnson, who allowed communist forces to use safe rear areas in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to stage attacks into South Vietnam. No matter how much success American and South Vietnamese forces had, there were always fresh troops and supplies being smuggled over the Ho Chi Minh Trail... The danger of not making plans for refugees. One of the great stains on American honor in Indochina was the horrible fate suffered by so many Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who put their trust in us. When the end came we left far too many of them in the lurch, consigning them to prison, death or desperate attempts to escape. "

The legacy and lessons of VietNam are too big to contain in one speech or even a dozen speeches. President Bush should have started this series of speeches during the 2004 campaign when the ghosts of VietNam were first raised. Then maybe the American people would have a fuller appreciation of where we were in VietNam and the dangers that lie before us today.

Survey Says...

As many of you long time readers know, I don't put a lot of stock in polls and polling. I've seen how easy it is for less than honorable or honest pollsters to manipulate the data. That being said, the Gallup Organization is usually fairly straight up in their processes, which makes the results of their latest poll so striking (HT Captain Ed)



"A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll. "



It is Gallup's breakdown of the numbers that I find to be of the most interest.



"Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month."



The Democrats are bleeding support from their own people. That could be as disasterous for them as 2006 was for Republicans.



"The decline in congressional job approval could merely reflect the cessation of any public good will it engendered when the new leadership arrived in January, since the current 18% rating is similar to what it was in December 2006 (21%).
But, it could also reflect disappointment with the new Congress' performance (especially among Democrats) and economic unease.
Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress. "



This Congress has, without a doubt, lived up to the "Do Nothing" label. They have both Houses, they have relatively veto proof majorities, but the have not had the intestinal fortitude to do the one thing that their voters want most...to end the war in Iraq NOW! All Congress needs to do is to with-hold the funding for the war and the troops would have to come home IMMEDIATELY. It's that simple.



What the Congressional leaders know, what they refuse to stand up and tell the voters is that to do what they wish would certainly DOOM the Iraqi people to unspeakable violence and would destablize an already volitile region. That is also very simple. Will ANY Democrat in Congress stand up to the left-roots and say "NO"? I doubt it, but I pray that someday soon I can stand here in this forum and say "I was wrong"!

Tax Protests

THANK YOU JASON LEWIS for this story!

"When the United States invaded Iraq more than four years ago, war opponent David Gross asked his bosses for a radical pay cut, enough so he wouldn't have to pay taxes to support the war.
"I was having a hard time looking at myself in the mirror," Gross said. "I knew the bombs falling were in part paid with my tax dollars. I had to actually do something concrete to remove my complicity."...In any event, his employer turned him down and he quit. Gross, 38, now works on a contract basis, and last year he refused to pay self-employment taxes."

Woo Hoo....could you imagine what would happen if this takes off? Right to life advocates could demand that their tax dollars quit funding Planned Parenthood. Anti-Globalists could demand that their tax dollars quit funding things like NAFTA and the United Nations. People who are opposed to welfare.....well you get the drift!

Like Jason said, given that the media stereotype of conservatives is that we are all filthy rich, it's just a matter of time (if Gross' actions are allowed to stand) before the conservatives completely defund welfare. Is that really what the leftists like Mr. Gross want? It's called the law of unintended consequences. You really should think about the repercussions of your actions before you start into something like this.

I'll tell you what David...I have a hard time looking myself in the mirror knowing that my tax dollars go to kill babies. How about we swap? You pay my share that would go to Planned Parenthood and I'll pay for the war? Sound like a deal? Given that I am a "rich" Conservative, I'm sure that my share will more than make up the paltry amount that you would be contributing on your salary.

The rest of the story?

A couple of days ago I wrote about a statement that was made by the governor of Kansas in wake of a killer tornado. A couple of days later, a Democratic candidate for President used that tornado to bash the President on his deployment of the National Guard in Iraq. Now it is being reported (unconfirmed at this moment) that the governor's remarks were made at the behest of the DCN and Chairman Howard Dean in order to gain cheap political points on the President and the Republicans. At first I was hesitant to believe that this could be the case, but then I found this editorial from the Topeka (KS) Capital Journal.

"Taken at face value, there was nothing about party politics in Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ recent comments that the war in Iraq was sapping the National Guard’s ability to respond to natural disasters.Viewed through even a thin layer of skepticism, though, an image emerges of a politician seizing a chance to score points at the expense of the Bush administration....But Sebelius, like anybody else, knows there are inherent political implications in a Democratic governor raising concerns about a Republican president’s military management. And it wouldn’t take a huge leap to conclude Sebelius considered those implications before she spoke out.Sebelius works without a carefully crafted game plan about as often as Ashton Kutcher finishes a novel. She’s calculating and cautious, which is a big part of why she’s won two terms as governor in a Republican state.The timing of Sebelius’ remarks also gives rise to skepticism. After drawing a stinging response from the White House, where press secretary Tony Snow said equipment was available but Sebelius didn’t follow procedures to get it, Sebelius’ office said equipment shortages weren’t an issue in Greensburg.“We are doing absolutely fine right now,’’ said the governor’s spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran. “What the governor is talking about is down the road.’’

Down the road???? Let's go back and revist the governors remarks from Monday.

" A shortage of trucks, helicopters and other equipment -- all sent to the war in
Iraq' has hampered recovery in a U.S. town obliterated by a tornado, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said on Monday.

"There is no doubt at all that this will slow down and hamper the recovery," Sebelius, a Democrat, told Reuters in Kansas where officials said the statewide death toll had risen to 12 on Monday." (emphasis added)

These are not forward looking statements....these are here and now statements! Now back to Mr. Anderson.

"Why, then, was the issue brought up so early? This is the time for rebuilding, healing and grieving, not for politics.Too bad Sebelius’ remarks have already steered the tragedy in that direction."

Why indeed Governor Sebelius? There may indeed be more to this story than first blush would lead us to think. This bears close scrutiny - but then again we will never see this out of the Star Tribune.....

UPDATE - my friend Joni sent me this.

"XM Radio’s Quinn & Rose made the allegation that DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early Sunday morning and instructed her not to request federal assistance in recovery from the Greensburg tornado, and to lie about the federal response to date, on their show, The War Room, today. After I discussed the story via phone with both Quinn and Rose today, here’s what they sent me.
PLEASE NOTE: The following is information we have received from a reliable source. We have never been misinformed by this person in the past.
It seems that, on Sunday, a few hours after Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, made her remarks about Bush sending all their National Guard Members and Resources to Iraq, she made a call to Brownback
Sebelius, was calling to apologize to the Senator for making the Political statements that she did. She explained that she did not believe them and that they actually had too many National Guardsmen show up.
Governor Sebelius explained “Sam, you know how political everything is right now and we’re not allowed to let an opportunity like this just pass.” She continued “I made sure not to blame you or Pat (Senator Roberts?) or anybody outside the White House. With his (Bush’s) numbers, you can’t really blame me for usin’ that.”
Then Sebelius explained the path to her comments. After Brownback told her that he was very disappointed in her, She pleaded “You know me Sam, I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t have to.” She declared “Howard (Dean) called me around 5 o’clock (in the morning) and told me not to ask The White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back. Dick (Durban?) called me an hour or 2 later and that’s when he told me we needed to use this ‘n’ said to talk about the Guard all bein’ at war.”
She then explained the thinking; “Speaker and Harry got so much heat on them from both sides over this damn war, ‘n’ they need to get the press on somethin’ else. I didn’t think it was right to use it like this either, but I didn’t see’s I had much choice in this climate, Sam.”
She the[n] apologized a few more times and promised that she’d try to move away from the comment when she and Brownback were to meet up later and tour the damage, but she had to so it without disappointing Dean and Pelosi.
I asked them to characterize their source, and they replied that she or he would be in a position to have knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Brownback and Gov. Sebelius and has never misinformed them before. Sean Hannity has called Sen. Brownback’s office to either verify or debunk the story, but so far the senator has done neither. There is word that the senator may attempt a “limited hangout” strategy this weekend, in which he acknowledges that the conversation took place but won’t remember the Dean angle. Such a strategy, if that’s what Sen. Brownback does, might be an attempt to maintain comity in what has until now been by all accounts a smooth relationship between the Democratic governor and Republican officials in Kansas. Comity shouldn’t come at the price of truth, however.
At this point, I have no way of verifying whether DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and instructed her to lie about the federal response to Friday’s devastating tornado. But I will make some calls and see what I can find out. Quinn & Rose’s story does fit the timeline and does fit the Democrat M.O. of late, in which they find a way to blame every single thing under the sun on Bush and on the war in Iraq. Other Democrat governors have pre-emptively blamed the lack of response to disasters that haven’t even happened yet on Bush and the war in Iraq. So on its face the story strikes me as very plausible."

Stay tuned kids.....it could get interesting!

Town Hall Video

Andy at Residual Forces has video up from the Town Hall meeting with Congressman John Kline. If you do not have the time (or the bandwidth) to watch the nearly two hours recorded I recommend that you watch Merrilee Carlson's remarks, SSG Thul's read remarks (link at RF is not working I will add as soon as AAA fixes it) and the remarks from the Iraqi national who was pleading for us to remain in Iraq. If you are not moved to tears by the end of their remarks.....well I don't know what to say.

Q&A Time Part 2

Questions again in italics.

Why are we still there when people like General Petraus says that the war can not be won militarily?

JK - the war can't be won ONLY by the military. We need a military and political solution along with oil sharing and everything else. Prime Minister al Maliki made some mistakes (mistakes were made by a lot of people including President Bush & Prime Minister al Maliki). al Maliki turned only to fellow Shia (including al Sadr) and now he sees that was a mistake. We need all pieces working in unison in order to be successful. Iraq Study Group recommendations ARE being implimented which is helping. The Iraq Army is making big progress, but there are big problems with the Iraqi Police which is not helping.

Saddam did not bomb the World Trade Centers - Osama bin Laden did. We should be going after bin Laden and we are not. We (the anti-war protesters) are not unpatriotic (even though you refuse to honor a Gold Star Mother because she happens to be the Anti-Cindy Sheehan) and we are tired of being called that (we will be addressing THIS in a later post). We are sick and tired of people who say the support the troops not voting for bills that help the troops. You voted for only one bill that helped the troops - I am not making this up (well yes you are but....). Your actions are dispicable.

JK - I understand and appreciate your feelings. Just as you dislike being called unpatriotic, I dislike being called dispicable. Pandamonium broke out at this point. The speaker (who was almost back to her seat in the middle of a row) raced back to the person holding the mic, yanked it out of her hand and yelled "I did not call you that". (Ed. - While technically she is correct, everyone knows (even the Junior Logician gets this) that calling someones action despicable is the same as calling the person dispicable. Her intent was crystal clear.) Someone yelled "sit down and let him speak" someone else yelled "let her talk" which was answered with "SHE ALREADY DID!" At that point, the moderator finally took control of the floor again - although there was much grumbling from the floor.

An Iraqi National spoke next and his words were powerful.

"I am an Iraqi National living here in the US for three years. I never imagined that I would ever see democracy in action like I am seeing tonight! We want the same democracy and freedoms that you have here. I want to address the concerns. I started working for the American Army when the war first started. I had to move here 3 years ago under political asylum because the insurgents threatened me and my family. We love and admire all American soldiers and we are in awe of those who died on our behalf. People who say we are not helping do not know what is going on in Iraq. We are helping and we are in danger because of it! To the speakers who say this is a religious war - this is not Christian versus Islam. To those who say bring the troops home now I say - GIVE US A CHANCE!!! WE NEED IT AND WE WANT IT! If you pull out now it will be a sign to those who wish to harm you that you are weak."

The last question was about war funding but I could not write anymore (plus I had to get a drink of water as I had a really bad tickle in my throat). All in all it was a very productive and informative meeting. I will have one more post that is just observations of the night and then pictures!

Q&A Time

Questions will be in italics.

Congressman Kline started off the Q&A session by answering a few of the questions that were asked during the comments (ed. how he remembered these without taking notes amazes me as I know I could not have remembered).

Regarding the question about Congressman Murtha's call for a draft, Congressman Kline said he would not support that. Our troops today are the best ever (with all apologies to the WWII generation). Regarding NCLD, Congressman Kline said that he was disappointed with the funding levels for NCLB as well as special education (based on the federal mandates) that that NCLB was getting reviewed as it is up for renewal. Several are pushing for NCLB to be applied to high schools, but the congressman is opposing that as it is not fully functionable in it's current format and until it is we should not expand it. Congressman Kline added that he thought NCLB was an over-reach by the federal government. Regarding the defination of terrorism (this was brought up by one of the commentors that I did not quote) Congressman Kline said that saying we are fighting "terrorism" is wrong because there is no real defination of what "terrorism" is. He said that there rare all new people (representing the US Government) in Iraq - from the ambassador on down. With the new people has come a new direction and they (General Petraus and his leadership team) deserve the opportunity to succeed. We should not make it illegal for the troops to win the war!

One questioner got up with a series of questions that were all over the board. He lead off with figures from a debunked Lancet report that says that there are 40,000+ dead Iraqi's alone as a result of the war. He wanted to know why we don't here about the number of insurgents killed (body count)? What about the WMD's? What about President Clinton who said that Saddam was an issue? Why don't we hear about the faulty intel?

JK - there was some pretty horrific (his wording) intel at first. I think the 9/11 Commission addressed that. Not to bash President Clinton, but there was an erosion of human intelligence during his administration. There was no malice on President Clinton's part (regarding the intelligence) and there were no lies on the part of President Bush. Why no body count? The daily body count (during Viet Nam) was disasterous policy. The President's senior advisors and I voiced the opinion that we should not do that. It (the daily body count) was the wrong thing to do.

An activist for the South Suburban Labor Advisory Council asked Congressman Kline why he did not support the Employee Free Choice Act - after detailing harassment that she (and her fellow coworkers got) when they tried to unionize a print shop.

JK - The coersion and intimidation by an employer that you experienced IS illegal. Coersion and intimidation by a union IS illegal. I voted against this Act because it took away the employees right for a private ballot in this kind of a vote. The private ballot is a hallmark of our society and the employees deserved to know that no one, not their employer, not the union and not their fellow co-workers would know how they voted!

What are you doing to strengthen the border?

JK - Last session Congress approved additional border guards and partially funded them (ed. - they should have FULLY funded the new guards). We funded fence sensors and the building of a 700 mile fence. Our problem right now is that the US government has not credibility (when it comes to border enforcement). Until we have credibility on border enforcement, we can not have guest worker programs or anything else.

Can you comment on the news report that the US government is actively trying to destabilize the Iranian government by funding excursions from Pakistan into Iran?

JK - I have not seen the report so I don't know the full context, but that corner of Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan is very unstable. It is not under Pakistani, Afghani OR Iranian control. It is a source of concern for all three governments and part of the reason why the Taliban is resurging there.

The rising cost of college tuition is a concern for many people. What is your plan to address this issue?

JK - short of imposing price controls (which is impractical in this situation) we are doing what we can. The last Congress took $12B from the Student Loan Administration Program for more Pell Grants and to reduce the interest rates on loans. Congress is actively looking for a solution and if you have one I would love to hear it. (From the audience "Roll back the tax cuts" which got lots of hoots and hollers from the lefties and a hissed "YES" from the Code Pink lady next to me). Congressman Kline laughed and said "you will be happy to know that this Congress is working on the largest tax increase in history (which drew boos from the righties).

We are hearing many different reports about what happened to get us into Iraq and what is going on now. It is hard to know what to believe. Do you support complete investigations into what got us here and how things are being handled?

We have made some progress, but not enough. One recommendation (from the 9/11 Commission) was to reorganize Congress. The Republican leadership from the last session didn't want to do it because it was "too hard". The Democrats campaigned that they would impliment ALL the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations but once they got into power they said "except this one". We are working on it.

What is the goal (for Iraq)? It should be getting the troops OUT NOW (emphasis the speakers). We are not getting cooperation from the Iraqi civilian population. When are the Iraqi's going to be ready to take over for us?

Surprising and amazing progress is being made in places like the al Anbar Provence (Western Iraq). We ARE getting cooperation from the local sheiks who got tired of al Qaeda killing their people.

continued in the next post!

Comments part two

The next person to speak was Merrilee Carlson a Gold Star Mother. Her son Michael was killed saving the lives of members of his unit who were trapped in a submerged Bradley. Her words were haunting (especially to the mother of a son).

"On my son's 22nd birthday (February 14) my son got on a plane for Iraq...he never saw his 23rd birthday. On 9/11 he was finishing boot camp...he was mad that we were attacked like this - on our home soil and even madder still that we allowed this to happen. We OWE IT to our troops to let them finish the job." (emphasis hers)

When she sat down, 2/3 of the audience rose to applaude her and her son. One third not only didn't stand, they didn't applaud.

The next speaker rose on behalf of Sgt Thul, who couldn't attend himself as he is still on duty in Iraq. He read portions on the Star Tribune editorial that Sgt. Thul wrote:

"I won't pretend to speak for everyone in uniform over here, and in fact no one ever could. There are as many opinions in the military as there are in the civilian world. But I can tell you that a majority of U.S. troops want to stay in Iraq and finish the mission. How do I know this? Two ways.
The first is anecdotally, from the men and women I work with and talk to every day. I have yet to meet someone who thinks the long-term good of the United States and the Middle East would be served by an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Many of us are tired and frustrated and miss our families and just want to go home. But we want to go home after transferring our area of responsibility to another unit, whether it is U.S. or Iraqi. We don't want to abandon our posts.
The second way I know that my fellow soldiers want to stay is that they have been saying so in a petition to Congress. At the AppealForCourage.org website, more than 1,500 service members in less than a month have signed an appeal for redress, the officially authorized method for the military to ask Congress to right a wrong, asking Congress to stop calling for retreat and to support our mission.
Day after day we see and hear our elected leaders in Washington telling us that the war is already lost or that it is not winnable. Nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of the military mission here is really quite simple. Train the Iraqi army and police to do the job that we are currently doing, give them the reins, and then take our leave. It is a slow job, but steady progress is being made. Already entire provinces of Iraq are under Iraqi military control. In more than 70 percent of the country, the Iraqi army and police are in the lead."

He then went on to advise Congressman Kline that it was their intention to present the Appeal for Courage Petition for Redress FIRST to Congressman Kline in the hopes that he would present it to Congress.

The next speaker (a self professed "scholar of history") then got up to express her "deep concerns" that we were losing our civil rights. She then called the prior two speakers remarks SPIN! (emphasis all mine). The murmers from the crowd were audible!

Ed. - let that sink in for a moment. The remarks and the experiences of our troops in the field who actually believe in what they are doing is SPIN to the anti-war crowd! What does that tell you about the depth of their "support" for the troops. It is clear to me that they ONLY support the troops as long as the troops are usefull tools to advance their agenda and if the troops DARE to disagree with them then the TROOPS are the ones engaging in spin.....oh my goodness....where is my duct tape?

The next speaker rose asking that we observe an minute of silence to honor Michael Carlson and all the Minnesota soldiers who lost their lives in the war. Classy way to defuse a tense moment.

The next speaker, a Viet Nam vet rose to thank the congressman for taking questions, remarking that when Candidate Coleen Rowley had Congressman Murtha in town for her, they did NOT allow questions to be asked. He then remarked that this was a legal war based on the August 2002 war vote which was based on the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. He then asked if we were going to recognize Iran's violations of the Geneva Convention (ed. - a clear reference to Iran's taking those British sailors hostage) and if Congressman Kline supported Congressman Murtha's call (on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer) for a military draft.

That was the last of the comments. I would like to remind you that per my first post, there was no preset order of speakers so the order that these comments came in was pure happenstance.

Report from the Town Hall - Comments

As MDE, Kevin and Joe Tucci have already reported, the first hour of yesterday's town hall meeting was specifically for comments directed toward the Congressman. The people spoke, the politician LISTENED! Here are some of the comments from last night (I will try to keep the editorial remarks to a minimum).

The first comment of the night was from a Chaska resident who was an educator. Her concern (ed - one that is shared by many including parents of school children) was on the No Child Left Behind Act. She (ed- righty IMHO) called NCLB an unfunded mandate and wanted to know what Congress was going to do to correct that.

Our first anti-war comment of the night came from another Chaska resident who mentioned that the latest Minnesotan to die in this "misguided adventure" (Daniel Olson) was just announced. The commentor wanted to know how many Iraqi have been trained and when would they be able to take over? (ed. - I will be referring back to this later). The commentor then said that he was president of the group "Veterans for Peace" and demanded an immediate withdrawal of the troops. Approximately 3-4 dozen audience members stood at these remarks. Meanwhile there was polite applause from the rest of the audience. These remarks were followed by an Eagan resident who remarked on governmental "cronyism" and the gross mismanagement of funds by Paul Bremer and the Iraqi Government.

The next set of comments were about Islam, with a retired naval commander from Prior Lake commenting on how our government and the American people were ignorant of the threat of Islam - how Islam is a religion of War, not peace and how they were compelled to lie to infidels (Taqquiya) which lead to an Apple Valley minister who commented that Christianity had their moments of savegry (ed - true enough but that was centuries ago - we outgrew it!). He said that we should "respect Islam" (ed - well respect IS a two way street sir).

The anti-war comments were interrupted by a couple of folks who wanted to comment on the Union Free Choice Act - one supporting Congressman Kline's vote on the bill, the other against it (ed - this is how the evening seemed to go)

A woman from Apple Valley wanted to comment on Executive War Powers. She said that it always seemed like we were at war with SOMETHING like terror or poverty or drugs or immigration so doesn't that give the President unlimited powers forever? ED - talk about your mis-intepretation of the War Powers. She clearly does not realize that Presidential War Powers only (let me repeat that) ONLY come after Congress has officially declared WAR on an opponent. These powers do not apply in the war on poverty or drugs because there is no official Congressional declaration of WAR!

A Liberian national then got up to speak about extending their temporary sanctuary (this deserves it's own post).

Several more comments went back and forth on the war (including one with a call to extend Guard benefits) then one lady (who obviously was NOT paying attention when our moderator laid out the format for the evening) demanded that we be allow to "question" the Congressman.

The next batch of comments are so important that I am moving them to their own post.

Reports from the Town Hall meeting

I just wanted to get a couple of quick hit impressions down about last night's town hall meeting with John Kline. I took copious notes and I will spend some time today putting them into a single coherent post.

Both sides were fairly equally represented. The town hall meeting was open to ALL issues so we did get a couple of intelligent questions about issues other than Iraq, but we all knew why the majority was there and the questions reflected it.

We heard from the usual suspects on the left but we also got to hear from a Gold Star Mom (Merrilee Carlson) and from Powerlines Sgt Thole from Chaska. Sgt. Thole's rep read from his 3/17 Star Tribune editorial and informed Congressman Kline that they were going to present his office first with the Appeal for Courage Petition (if you are active duty you need to check the site out).

I shot almost a full roll of film at the protest prior to the town hall meeting that I will be getting developed today so I should have pictures this afternoon. Stay tuned for further updates!

The Energizer Bunny has nothing on this guy!

You have to give Representative Murtha credit. He just refuses to give up on a plan that has no backing.

"Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified on Tuesday to the Senate Appropriations Committee that my plan to restore military readiness in order to meet current and future threats and to require the Pentagon to uphold its own guidelines, standards and policies would somehow be damaging on the battlefield.

I would think that General Pace would know better than me, better than Representative Murtha what would and would not be damaging to the military.

"Gen. Pace himself recently issued a report to Congress that said because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that our military wouldn't be able to quickly and fully respond to another crisis. Two weeks ago, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said the president's surge in combat troops in Iraq will further erode the Army's ability to respond to other incidents around the world."

That is probably true, Congressman, however where ARE the incidents happening right now in the world. Are they happening in Kosovo? In South Africa? In Australia? Or are they happening in Afghanistan and Iraq?

"Gen. Pace also indicated that if he were forced to adhere to established Defense Department readiness standards, one-third of units currently programmed for Iraq could not be deployed. This statement is alarming. Is Gen. Pace saying that he is willing to accept that in the near future one-third of the total military force in Iraq will not be fully manned, fully trained or fully equipped?
Gen. Pace is trying to shift the blame, when in fact it is this administration's polices that are hurting our military."

Excuse me Congressman, but we ARE at war. At least we were the last time I looked. The Logical Husband was in the military and when he was in, he never got "off time". He was always on duty. It comes with being in the military...something the Congressman appears to have forgotten.

"Let's revisit history. On Nov. 17, 2005, I said that the failed war policies of this administration were destroying the future of our military. I said that our military is stretched thin, that the war in Iraq is resulting in significant shortfalls at our bases in the United States and that we must rebuild our Army. I knew then that the war policies of this administration were unsustainable and that our military preparedness and strategic reserve would suffer.
After visiting Iraq in 2003, I was the one who found severe shortages in body armor and shortages in armor and spare parts for our military vehicles. I worked with my colleagues to fix these problems. Since the start of this war, Congress has provided an additional $145 billion for essential war fighting and life sustaining items which the president did not ask for but which were needed. Congress also provided funding for 30,000 extra troops as a "temporary increase in end strength" because our military asked for it."

Timeline issues aside, let's just cut to the chase. What does the man that is the commander in Iraq want? What do the experts want? They want more troops in the field! Even Senator Joe Liebermann wants more troops in Iraq! However, that will now sway the intrepid Representative. He wants to withdraw the troops and that is that.

The people of America are indeed uneasy about this war, but they are not willing to withdraw in defeat. If nothing else, we learned the lessons of VietNam - something that apparently the Democrats in Congress have not.