Fallout

Self-professed enemies of the United States, who call routinely for the downfall of this nation, watch our internal politics and gloat. The theatrical, empty, spineless maneuvering and posturing for political advantage plays out not just at home anymore, but on the world stage even more than it used to. In the age of the internet and satellite news, everything that transpires in Washington is seen, in real time, all over the world.

They watch, they goad at the weak points and they wait. But they are very encouraged by what they see playing out right now. There was a time, in living memory, when internal politics stopped – like a thrown switch – at the water's edge. No more. Now American Senators will cheerfully shake hands with, and sign autographs for, enemies of this country who represent governments with official positions calling for the downfall of the nation. Now the criticism of a wartime president, rather than diminishing after the elections has increased and grown increasingly shrill.

There is no talking to the extremes on this issue. There is less and less common ground, less tolerance for opposing views. The left is increasingly strident in its demands that dissenting (read non-leftist) voices be silenced. This despite their incessant, televised whining and wailing about how they feel that they are being silenced. They charge, in a ravening pack, after Representative Ellen Tauscher because she is not far enough to the left. This is, of course, the exact same viciousness that they unleashed on Joe Lieberman. Both of these people are extremely reliable Democrats. But just not far enough to the left for the Koz Kidz, therefore, to the true believers, they need to be destroyed.

And those who hate this country and all it stands for are cheering in the wings. And working hard to get nuclear weapons while our foolish posturing continues apace. Iran is, again, urinating on the UN and increasing its nuclear program. The hallowed UN, that beloved icon of the left. Yet the left pays no mind at all. They turn a blind eye to the Mullahs, disregard their open, naked threats to wipe an ally of the US off the map and in general play the game for those who hate us.

Are there Democrats who do not believe in the leftwing agenda? Sure. But they are increasingly being backed into a corner by the pack they have allied themselves with. The party is being cowed by the shrill screeching from the folks like Kos who unleash their believers on those who don't toe the line, then brag in the national press about how they made someone knuckle under (as Kos did). The Democrats are letting a man who only escaped criminal charges because he held out for more cash later dictate a stunningly stupid policy that will come back to pay dividends on the next Democratic party president who needs to use force in the world.

I have been saying, for as long as I have been writing this blog, that the world is getting closer to a general war because of the failure to face down the ones who are really trying to bring that war about. But the US – and the administration in particular – are easier targets than the real problem regimes. And pretty soon the fallout of al this will come to pass.

And it will be fallout.

Will Lieberman Switch Parties?

The Politico is reporting that Joe Lieberman indicates that an attempt by the Democrats to defund the war might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. I think he just telegraphed – loud and clear – that the Democrats had better back away from that cliff. And the nutroots screeching pressure has exactly zero effect on him – he's already been through that particular mill and survived.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He was elected to office over an avowed anti-war candidate. So all the posturing from the left – which is already beginning – means nothing. He told the voters he supported the war and they elected him. The Dems now have a major problem if they go ahead with the Unindicted Co-Conspirator's sleazy plan.

More Monsters

US Troops have captured a bomb making factory. In it were quantities of chemicals. It is believed the terrorists were planning still more chemical attacks on civilians.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. troops raided a car bomb factory west of Baghdad with five buildings full of propane tanks and ordinary chemicals the military believes were to be used in bombs, a spokesman said Thursday, a day after insurgents blew up a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the chlorine attack Wednesday — the second such "dirty" chemical attack in two days — signaled a change in insurgent tactics, and the military was fighting back with targeted raids.

"What we are seeing is a change in the tactics, but their strategy has not changed. And that's to create high-profile attacks to instill fear and division amongst the Iraqi people," he told CNN. "It's a real crude attempt to raise the terror level by taking and mixing ordinary chemicals with explosive devices, trying to instill that fear within the Iraqi people."

But he suggested the strategy was backfiring by turning public opinion against the insurgents, saying the number of tips provided by Iraqis had doubled in the last six months.

That last sentence I highlighted is important. It also says there is a real chance that the so-called surge has a realistic chance at success. We cannot pull our troops out and leave a genocide in their wake.

When Lefties Stalk

I posted a couple of days back about a man who entered the home of a complete stranger and assaulted him and his roommates. The attacker did so because one of the occupants of the house was a Republican. The man got the address off of Facebook, apparently. Michelle Malkin Has heard from one of the victims of the assault. And guess what?

The attacker wasn't a conservative.

At this point, Stone politely stood up, shook my hand, and told me that he had found my address on facebook. He asked if I was a College Republican as it said on my account, I told him yes. He then asked me "Oh, so that means you support the war, right?" and I responded with a yes. He then said that since I was for the war, if I was interested in signing up for the army. At this point I was sure he was a recruiter, and I told him that I'd definitely look into it as soon as I graduate (I'm a junior political science/econ major right now at UMW). This is where something changed in his eyes and he started getting aggressive. He took a step towards me and said that I support the war, yet don't want to fight in it.

At this point my roommate, Matt, stepped into the room and told him he was being disrespectful, and that it was time to leave. I told Matt that I could handle the guy (I've gotten into debates like this before). Stone responded to Matt by saying that "I'm not done talking to your roommate, he's a pussy and can't back up anything he believes in". At this point I, not politely, told him to leave our house. He refused, saying he was not done talking with us. He threw the military literature he had at me, which turned out to be United States Air Force literature. He said that I would never make it in the army and that was why he brought over USAF literature (implying he came over in a sinister manner–not only have I never seen/spoken to him before, but what if I had said that I had wanted to join up, right then and there? Oops, take this Air Force literature…).

My roommate Matt pushed Stone's shoulder towards the door at this point, and the second that happened Stone swung and struck Matt in the side of the head. Both exchanged several punches to the face/body and then I jumped in, throwing them both onto our couch. My other roommate called the police while both Matt and I tried to restrain him on the couch, but he kept hitting us. Both of us were yelling at him to leave, but he kept screaming that he wanted to fight us one on one like men, that we're "pussies" for not being in Iraq, and that we're hypocrites. He going crazy. Both of us struck him several times while he was on the couch. We finally dragged him off of the couch and forcibly pushed him out of the door. He then forced his way back into the house, where he struck Matt several more times. We both pushed him outside and went outside with him, where he would not leave our porch, and he continued to strike us both. Matt ended up pushing him over the railing, but fell along with him face first, with Stone holding onto my right arm as he did so.

Please take a look at some of the posts Stone put up recently Malkin has them, I won't post that language on this site). He is over-the-edge deranged at Republicans in general and mirrors – exactly – the extreme rhetoric of the left. But he also acts on it. This is the danger of that kind of hysterical incitement. Seriously, some folks better start dialing it back or incidents like this will get worse.

Why It’s Different

Gerard Baker explains why there is a great deal of difference between the situation in Southern Iraq and the situation that the US forces have faced in the rest of the country, particularly Baghdad. As he explains, British forces have been steadily declining in numbers since the initial phases of the war. The further reductions that Tony Blair announced are neither cause for celebration on the left nor a cause for gloom among war supporters.

The first point to note, is that, as the prime minister himself said in his statement to the House of Commons, the British troop presence in Iraq – unlike the US – has been on a steady downward trajectory since the initial phase of the war ended in May 2003. At one point total UK military personnel in the region numbered close to 40,000. By the end of 2004, the number stationed in the UK-command sector of Iraq – around Basra in the southeast of the country – was just over 9,000. Two years ago it was reduced to the current level of roughly 7,100. With yesterday's announcement , the new total will be about 5,500.

This is, obviously, well below the 150,000-plus troops the US will have in Iraq once the new counter-insurgency strategy is fully under way but it is still a long way ahead of the next largest contingent of the coalition, Poland at around 2,000. It hardly represents a retreat or a surrender, still less an abandonment of the US.

Second, the task facing the British forces in and around Basra has always been rather different from the challenge facing the US forces elsewhere. Basra is ethnically and religiously largely homogeneous – more than 80 per cent of the population is Shia Arab. For some time now the main source of violence in Basra has been twofold – extremist Islamist groups attacking British forces; and, much more important, intra-Shia Arab conflict – some of it political, some of it, simply criminal.

The other, overlooked, fact is that Britain is trying to expand its commitment in Afghanistan and is stretched thin at the moment. Not that the calls to remove troops from there won't go into full cry the moment the last British boots are off the ground in Iraq. Don't believe it? In the Guardian, Jonathan Steele is arguing that British forces should have abandoned Iraq in 2005. In other words, we demand forces pull out yesterday. How long will it be until the same voices are raised against the war in Afghanistan? And demand a retroactive withdrawal?

Calamari The Size Of Tractor Tires!

Instead of a plate of tiny rings of calamari, what if your waiter simply rolled your order to the table? It could happen if the New Zealand sport of giant squid fishing catches on!

The adult Colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) was caught by fishermen long lining for toothfish in deep ocean off Antarctica, New Zealand Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton said on Thursday in announcing the catch…….

…….Colossal squid are one of the most mysterious creatures in the deep ocean, growing up to 12 to 14 metres (36 to 42 feet) in length. Anderton said the squid would be photographed, measured, tissue sampled, registered and preserved intact.

"On-going examination of this giant will help to unlock some of the mysteries of the deep ocean. Even basic questions such as such as how large does this species grow to, and how long does it live for are not yet known," he said.

Local media said early estimates put the squid at 10 metres (30 feet) in length and weighing 450 kg (992 pounds) — 150 kg (330 pounds) heavier than the next biggest specimen found……

……O'Shea said if calamari were made from the Colossal squid's rings it would be the size of tractor tyres.

The Colossal squid is actually more massive than the Giant squid. But we are not impressed just yet. Wait until someone lands a specimen of the Mega-Ginormous squid!

A Pelosian Choice

George Will takes a look at the complete lack of decisiveness and courage in the Murtha-Pelosi strategy to try to defund the war by stealth means. Nobody in America is going to buy that the "readiness restrictions" is anything more than a slow bleed strategy because the unindicted Abscam co-conspirator, Murtha, openly called it what it is in an interview.

Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.

So they aim to hamstring the president with restrictions on the use of the military. The restrictions ostensibly are concerned with preparedness but actually are designed to prevent deployments to Iraq.

Last Saturday, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a resolution disapproving the president's policy because Democrats would not permit a vote on a resolution stating that the Senate will not cut off funds for troops in the field. That resolution would have committed the Senate to not taking the path that many Democrats already are tiptoeing down.

Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."

Will points out that no matter how they try to dance around here, the Democrats will get a lion's share of the blame for a defeat if they force the issue and defund the war. They will get the same blame if they do it by stealth means. They cannot dodge this one – all they can do is look actually worse by following the Murtha doctrine. Will calls that a Hobson's choice. I think that the term Pelosian choice fits even better. The Democrats were voted in promising change. Pelosi is delivering more of the same or even worse. The voters will remember that.