Lost in Mahmoud week and the rush to SCHP, a new embarrassing low was held in in the Dirksen Building as Robert Byrd convened the Senate Appropriations Committee looking into the supplemental funding request by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. 

Joining Gates on the panel was John Negroponte, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, and about two dozen Code Pink nutters, who couldn't, it seems, miss this for the world.  If there's one thing you have to give them credit for, it's attendance.  The Code Pink gals have shown up at more government public meetings as well as think tank meetings than most politicians over the last few months.  In fact, the only place they weren't was at Columbia University this week.  If only these ladies dogged the Iranian terrorist-in-chief, chanting for him to get out of Iraq, as fervently as they do to U.S. officials and realist pundits on the war, they actually might have served a useful purpose in reducing the propaganda gains Ahmadinejad made while in America this week.

Back to Robert Byrd, the long of tooth Senator from West Virginia.  His opening remarks of the hearing were spent on theatrics about the costs of the war in Iraq. When he asked rhetorical questions, the Code Pink gals stepped in as the Greek chorus.

But then, things got out of hand. The Code Pink gals couldn't contain themselves to merely being backup singers to the Robert Byrd band, and got removed from the chambers. 

Last night, MoveOn.org tried to declare defeat one more time in the United States Senate.  After Republican leader Mitch McConnell successfully blocked the Webb amendment from getting the required sixty votes to move on, the Democrats pulled back to reassess how best to continue on the Defense Appropriations bill.  That's when Texas Senator John Cornyn struck back.

Last week, after the reprehensible MoveOn.org full-page ad ran in the New York Times, Senator Cornyn offered an amendment to the transportation and housing bill, a simple sense of the Senate to condemn the ad, which essentially called General David Petraeus a traitor.  The Democrats, eager not to have to cast that vote, at the direction of Senator majority whip Dick Durbin, made a motion to the Chair to rule the Cornyn resolution not germane to the current bill.  Freshman Senator Jon Tester of Montana, a recipient of at least $88,000 dollars of MoveOn money in the 2006 election cycle, according to Congressional Quarterly reports, ruled to kill the amendment. 

This week, Durbin, who argued so fervently a week prior against resolutions that were not germane to bills, offered his Dream Act legislation, basically an amnesty for students, as part of the Defense Appropriations bill, equally as non-germane as the Cornyn bill from last week. 

But late last night, Cornyn resurrected his amendment, and also tied it to the Defense Appropriations bill, where it is now germane, and actually got the Senate to vote today on it, with stunning results.  First, here's the actual text of what the Senate vote on today:

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.

(a) Findings.–The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.

(2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

(3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University.

(4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations.

(5) General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences.

(6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals.

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

And now, here's the roll call vote:

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Not Voting Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Not Voting Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Not Voting Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Not Voting Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Final score?  72-25, with three not voting.  There are many interesting things about this vote, such as the fact that Jon Tester, the MoveOn.org candidate from Montana, voted against this bill before he voted for it, as did fellow Montanan, Max Baucus, who voted against it before he changed his vote and voted for it.  Chris Dodd of Connecticut, presidential candidate, voted against supporting Petraeus and for MoveOn.org.  Joe Biden, presidential candidate, didn't bother to vote. 

If any of you have any inkling of what kind of presidential timber Illinois Senate Barack Obama possesses, all you have to do is look at this vote.  The Cornyn vote was called, Obama came to the floor, and when he discovered what the vote was for, he left the floor and didn't cast a vote.  He literally ran away from merely casting a vote to support our top military general in the field.  But that's not even the most telling moment of the vote.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the next president of the United States, unless Republicans decide to run like Republicans again in 2008 and keep the White House in responsible hands, did cast a vote today, and voted against Petraeus, and for MoveOn.org, a watershed moment in her campaign.  If she ever wanted her public image to be that of a moderate, it's gone now with this vote. Hillary is one of three or four people that will be the next president of the United States, and she just tipped her hand that she shows more respect to the radical fringe of her base than she does to the country's top general prosecuting a war that she originally supported. 

Everything else that comes out of Hillary's mouth from here to the election, whether it be smoke and mirrors about health care, education, whatever her polling tells her to say, keep in mind that when you hear Hillary Clinton speak, you are hearing her channel what MoveOn.org has approved her to say.  If Republicans are smart, they'll remind people of this vote from now until the election. 

                                                       Photo courtesy of Palomino

As we wind down Talk Like A Pirate Day, If there ever was a pirate council in American politics, it's MoveOn.org.  They're scurrilous, they play dirty, and they're degenerates in every sense of the word.  So when they announced that they had purchased the Democratic Party, that they own it, they can't be very happy with their captain, Senator Harry Reid.

Reid and the Democrats did their head-counting this afternoon, and thought they finally had a window of opportunity in order to declare rhetorical defeat in Iraq in the Webb troop rotation bill. The Democrats moved up the vote, tried to spring the anti-war trap, had one extra vote going in with the appearance of Tim Johnson, and got 56 votes, four short of what he needed. Reid got beat again.  Instead of marching through the Carl Levin defeat bill, or any of the myriad of defeat bills he had hinted was coming earlier in the day, Reid retreated.  As Joe Lieberman said to the media outside of the Senate chamber, the Webb amendment was the last chance of victory for the anti-Iraq crowd, and they lost.

So what's next for Senator Reid?  At some point, MoveOn.org is going to call the special Harry Reid hotline phone they installed on his desk.  What is Reid going to say?  At what point do the left start in on their own for failing to deliver time and time again? 

Fortunately for the Republicans, Harry Reid is a feckless leader of the Senate, a poor head-counter, and an even worse strategist.  He's not even a good pirate. 

On International Talk Like A Pirate Day, maneuvering is going on today in the United States Senate, with majority leader Harry Reid working to try and schedule a series of votes tonight and tomorrow, trying to make the Republicans walk somewhere between 6-10 planks, hoping that they'll fall off of at least one.  If Reid is successful in getting one through, he can finally go back to the pirate council, MoveOn.org, and finally give them their return on investment.

All of these votes are going to be on amendments to the Defense Appropriations bill that would mandate date certain withdrawals.  Half of them will be Democratic-written defeatist amendments, half will be pseudo-Republican, Democrat-lite defeatist amendments.  Republican leader Mitch McConnell has some work to do.

While there are going to be a flurry of votes that are scheduled, the one tonight to focus on is the Webb amendment to unconstitutionally regulate troop rotation times, a backdoor way of withdrawing troops.  Reid and the Democrats are looking at this bill as a bellwether of how successful this barrage might be.  I'm told it's going to come up for a vote tonight, probably the first of the anti-war votes to come.

When Reid tried to resurrect his 'defeat now' strategy earlier in the summer, he had best opportunity he probably will ever have to get something passed out of the Senate.  Popularity for the war was at an all-time low and there wasn't enough measurable success on the ground in Iraq to help stabilize wobbly Republican Senators.  And yet, McConnell and the Republican leadership held enough of their caucus together to buy time until the September report by President Bush, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.  Reid should have a weaker hand to play this time around, but he doesn't.  He actually has a stronger hand with the return of Tim Johnson.

Events in Iraq are much different than they were at the beginning of the summer, unless, of course, you are Chuck Schumer.  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker successfully spoke beyond the wails of the anti-war left in Congress to Americans, and according to the most recent Gallup poll, America believes Petraeus' assessment.  But the vote tonight on the Webb amendment is being billed as the crucial vote, because Reid has one more vote this time in Tim Johnson, and the Republicans may have lost the vote of George Voinovich.  The vote is going to be tight. 

I'm told by sources on the Hill that although Senator McConnell and Republican leadership is working feverishly today to make sure they've got the votes they need to counter the onslaught to come. 

But here's where you come in.  If you support General Petraeus, if you believe his assessment on Iraq deserves to be supported, if you are tired of the Democrats' incessant desire for defeat, call your Senator today.  Call them right now.  202-224-3121 is the number for the Congressional switchboard.  Call your Senator and demand that no MoveOn.org-led amendment be passed that undercuts our troops and undercuts our strategy that is showing signs of winning.  If you live in Pennsylvania, please call Arlen Specter. If you live in Alaska, please call Lisa Murkowski. If you live in Indiana, call Richard Lugar.  The timing of when the Webb bill is raised tonight is very fluid, so call now.

UPDATE:  Harry Reid just got thumped again by McConnell and the Republicans.  The Webb Amendment, which was supposed to have been voted on later tonight, was moved ahead to vote at 5:30 because the Democrats thought they had enough votes.  They didn't.  The final vote was 56-44, with a 60 vote threshhold being required.  Amendment fails.  We'll keep you posted on which one of the flurry of bills is next to come. 

Preeminent military historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson appeared on Hugh's show last night, and had some remarkable things to say about a possible sea change in several Middle East countries, a change in how they now view some of the same terrorists that they helped create. 

But when Hugh turned to domestic politics towards the war, and in particular, how Democrats have reacted to the Petraeus and Crocker testimony of last week, here's what Professor Hanson had to say about Harry Reid:

HH: Well, on the weekend, Harry Reid told a Nevada newspaper that a million Iraqis had been killed in Iraq since the invasion. That’s trafficking in propaganda.  

VDH: Yeah, it is. He’s unhinged. I think that people have to realize that he’s unhinged. You know, when he said the war was lost, or that Petraeus was untrustworthy, this was a man, remember, that on October 12^th, 2002, gave a speech and said that he didn’t care about WMD, because we were in a de facto war with Saddam since ’91 when he broke the armistice accords, and we had to go to war with him. So I think he’s just somebody who’s…he’s almost a poster boy for the Republicans.

Read the rest here. 

As Hugh has said before, there is a difference between wrong and rotten.  Robin Williams is wrong on his politics, Bill Maher is rotten.  Wolf Blitzer interviewed the remarkably unfunny comedian on CNN's Situation Room today. Here's what he had to say about George Bush and General David Petraeus.



Maher calls President Bush a liar because he claimed that we've killed an average of 1,500 terrorists and extremists each month since January, and then questions who the enemy even is.  That's the problem with many on the left.  They won't even try to understand who the enemy is, because in their mind, George Bush is their enemy.  He fails to recognize that there are not just Iran and Saudi Arabia backed extremist Iraqis we're fighting, but also foreign fighters from all over the Middle East.  He doesn't understand that the late leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was directly affiliated with Zawahiri and bin Laden.  It doens't matter to him.  Bill Maher's hatred of George Bush is almost all-consuming. 

Once Blitzer got the soundbyte he was looking for, it was time to try for for the sweep of the doubleheader, and see if Maher would bit and slander General Petraeus.  Maher didn't disappoint, calling General Petraeus and democratically elected Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stooges of the President.  A career four-star general who has served his country with honor and distinction for decades is now a stooge because he won't recognize world in the same way the anti-war crowd does.

The intellectual dishonesty of Maher, and Blitzer for that matter, is staggering in this clip, because Maher claims Petraeus is a stooge of the President because the report presented to Congress was a "Bush report," and that Bush put the words in Petraeus' mouth.  The dirty little secret is that the reason the White House prepared the formal report to Congress is because it was legally required to by Congress.  The Bush administration was following the directive set out by Congress to report back in September.  But Maher didn't seem to want to realize that fact, and Blitzer certainly didn't seem to want let facts get in the way of a good soundbyte. 

Blitzer at least tried to counter by saying the General stated that his testimony was drafted by his own hand, and was not previewed by anyone in the administration, and doesn't Maher take Petraeus at his word.  Maher said flat out no, essentially calling Petraeus a lying stooge. 

The next thirty days promise to be remarkably turbulent for this country, especially in the Senate where MoveOn.org obviously has taken deep root with the Democratic Party and is demanding hard-core retreat provisions be lined up one after another.  Hopefully, Republican leader Mitch McConnell will be up to the task of defeating the defeatists on the other side of the aisle.

It's really a sad commentary when you have to look at the world today and say that in order to protect the Republic, you have to continue to defeat al Qaeda abroad, and defeat the Democratic Party here at home. 

An interesting statement was made today on the Senate floor shortly after Mitch McConnell and enough Republicans who believe the Constitution actually means what it says successfully blocked the District of Columbia from obtaining voting rights in Congress.  The debate shifted to the Defense Appropriations bill, an overdue piece of legislation that the Democrats are finally gettting to.

After liberal Republican Senator Smith from Oregon tried to attach a hate crimes bill to the Defense Authorization bill by unanimous consent, Arizona maverick John McCain objected, keeping the defense bill from getting watered down.  Shortly after, down to the well of the Senate came Massachusetts' Ted Kennedy, who offered the following:

I have every intention, with Senator Smith, at some time of offering the hate crimes legislation. I know the question comes up why are we offering hate crime legislation on a defense authorization bill? Well, the answer is very simple. the defense authorization bill is dealing with the challenges of terrorism and the hate crimes issue, to try and get a handle on the problems of hate crimes, we're talking about domestic terrorism, domestic terrorism.

Not to mention the fact that hate crimes legislation already exists at the federal level, and exists in 45 states and the District of Columbia, it's another glaring example about why the Democrats have no idea about the nature of the enemy we face in the global war on terror. What one's religious view holds about homosexuality, or whatever race relations exist in this country, it clearly cannot be compared to the threat of radical Islamic jihadism, which demands that one either convert to their particular brand of Islam or be killed.

The bill on the floor in the Senate is to continue to fund the troops who are on the front lines of the war fighting, killing and capturing real terrorists, and Ted Kennedy wants to funnel away money from the military to play political games and make rhetorical gains with the Democratic base in this country.

Since Kennedy is intent on tying hate crimes to the military budget, does that mean he wants U.S. troops to surge in America to combat his perception of a rise in domestic terrorism?

If anyone seriously follows what Democratic elected officials say day in and day out, it is demostrably clear that the party is not capable of leading the country during wartime.  

Well, if you're California Senator and legendary dim bulb Barbara Boxer, you monopolize the one chance you have of serving your constituents, all of them, not just the ones who are as crazy as you are, by engaging in dialogue on Iraq with the two people that have spent considerable more energy and effort than you have on the Iraq issue, and who might know a thing or two more than you do.  But alas, Senator Boxer chose not to use her time in that fashion.

Instead, she talked down to General Petraeus, completely ignored Ambassador Ryan Crocker, insinuated that Petraeus was a liar, accused him of cherry-picking facts and figures while doing exactly the same thing herself, offered her own version of reality and ended without giving Petraeus the courtesy of responding to her diatribe.  Check out yourself the Barbara Boxer-Democrat school of open debate.



If there is a funny part about this, it's at the very end when she turns it back over to Chairman Joe Biden.  Now Biden is famous for monopolizing the time allotted to him during the Roberts and Alito Supreme Court confirmation hearings, falling so in love with the sound of his own voice that he simply ran out of time before he got around to asking a question.  In this case, however, even Biden, never at a loss for words, especially when there's a camera pointed in his general direction, didn't know quite what to say after the Boxer rant, and said meekly to General Petraeus maybe he might respond to Senator Boxer in writing.  So much for the honor and respect the Democrats are going out of their way to say they are paying to Petraeus and Crocker.  There was nothing honorable or respectful in the conduct of Boxer, and even Biden knew it.

While General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker moved to the Senate to field questions, there was an interesting start to the day on the floor of the Senate.  After the opening prayer and comments from Harry Reid, Texas Senator John Cornyn took to the floor to offer an amendment to the Transportation and Housing bill currently being debated.

It was a simple amendment, one that wouldn't cost any money, and relatively speaking, wouldn't cost much time.  It was a simple request that a sense of the Senate be taken to reaffirm support for the credibility of General Petraeus, and denounce as a body the despicable MoveOn.org full-page ad that ran in the New York Times essentially calling the General a traitor. 

At the end of his presentation, in walked Kentucky Senator and Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. Here's what he had to say.



Washington Democrat Patty Murray was managing the time on the transportation bill for the majority, and at this point, she knew she had a problem.  The last thing she wanted to do today was have the Democrats be put on record as either endorsing or rejecting MoveOn.org's ad.  The Democrats know they overreached, but you don't want to go out of your way to upset the money people.  So she called in reinforcements in the person of Illinois Senator and majority whip, Dick Durbin.  Here's a portion of his remarks in defense of the attempt to quash the Cornyn amendment.




Refreshingly, to Durbin's credit, he did say he doesn't agree with the characterization of General Petraeus by MoveOn.org a few times in here.  This, of course, coming from the same Senator who compared our troops at Abu Ghraib to the Nazis, Pol Pot and the Soviet gulags. 

But then the weasely lawyer side of Durbin kicked in. As a defense to why the Senate shouldn't be in the business of weighing in when a political organization steps in it, he compares the actions of MoveOn.org over the weekend in the New York Times to that of the Swift Boat Vets when they attacked the record of John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, a ridiculous comparison to try and make.

The Swifties, themselves vets that served in Vietnam, went after claims made by politician and candidate John Kerry.  That's certainly their prerogative. But I do not believe they were major donors to all quarters in the Republican Party, the way MoveOn.org has spent money on Democratic candidates at all levels of government.  The Swifties didn't like John Kerry, and their mission was to defeat John Kerry for president, a mission that was accomplished.

Durbin decried that no Republican Senator weighed in during the attack on Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign as a defense why the Democrats shouldn't be required to vote today to renounce MoveOn.org.  Does he not see the difference between fellow vets going after a political candidate, and an organization that has claimed they own the Democratic Party, they've bought it, that has not attacked a political candidate, but slandered the top General in Iraq as a traitor, a General that was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to implement the very plan that he is now reporting on?  General Petraeus is not running for office.  He's conducting a war.  John Kerry wanted to be president. 

There is no comparison to make.  MoveOn.org's ad is reprehensible, and beside the Durbin slap on the wrist, there has been no Senator that has dared to call them onto the carpet for what they did to General Petraeus.  In fact, the Democrats went through the motion of asking the chair to rule on the germaneness of Cornyn's resolution as a way of protecting the Democrats from having to put on record a vote on MoveOn.org.  Naturally, one of the beneficiaries of MoveOn money, Jon Tester in Montana, sat in the chair, and without reservation, ruled the Cornyn amendment dead because is was not germane.  According tothis Congressional Quarterly report, Jon Tester had received at least $88,000 dollars of MoveOn.org money in his successful bid to unseat Conrad Burns.

Look for the Republicans to bring this back up repeatedly, as the Democrats struggle to continue taking MoveOn cash, but pretend they have no influence with the Democratic Party. 

Not to be outdone on the outrage scale by her South Florida colleague, Bob Wexler, Orange County, California's Sanchez, the very last person in the House of Representatives that you would expect to be invited to a gathering of Mensa, concluded the Joint House hearing with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Of all the things she could focus on, she asked a question about the facts on the ground versus an ABC News/BBC poll that better supports the Democrats' view that there is nothing good to be found in Iraq as long as George Bush has anything to do with it.
 

Note that after she finally gets around to her question, she directs the poll question to Ambassador Crocker, who cites the statistics he knows.  Sanchez interrupts and drops the insinuation that General Petraeus is manipulating the numbers in Iraq, essentially lying in his report, he numbers in his report, saying "and General Petraues will know what I mean by that."  

Later in her presentation, dripping with condescension, she slags the entire Iraqi population as saying we are the only good thing happening in their economy.  

She is an idiot.  And it is pretty well known even in the House of Representatives that she is an idiot.  And idiots being able to prosper and rise to the level of being able to ask questions of four-star generals in time of war is one of the things that is truly remarkable about this country.  But no one likes a condescending idiot.  It may be fair to say that when compared to the 160,000 men and women under General Petraeus' command, Congresswoman Sanchez may rank in the 2nd percentile in intelligence.  

But make no mistake, Sanchez, like Bob Wexler, like MoveOn.org, like the Code Pink protestors, like the Democrats in the Senate who were silent today when they should have been renouncing the New York Times ad today, does not hold the military in anything but contempt.

South Florida, Wexler is your idiot.  Here he is on display at the Petraues hearing just a little bit ago




To paraphrase what was said to Senator Joe McCarthy so many years ago, Congressman, have you no shame?

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman joined Hugh Hewitt earlier this afternoon, and Hugh played for him the offending comments from fellow Senator Chuck Schumer on the floor of the Senate yesterday.  Here is the audio of that segment, and here is the full transcript.  Senator Lieberman was very clear in his reaction. 

HH: I know he’s your friend, but Chuck Schumer had some extraordinary remarks to make on the Senate floor yesterday. Let me give you a slice of them. 

JL: Yeah. 

CS: The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes, we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. 

HH:  Senator Lieberman, despite the surge… 

JL: Yeah. 

HH: …and the inability of American soldiers? It sounds like he’s blasting our troops as ineffective and failures. 

JL: Yeah, I noted that, and as we say in the Senate, with all respect to my colleague from New York, I just, I couldn’t disagree with him more. In some senses, it’s an insult to the American troops. And look, beyond that, because the American troops don’t insult easily, this is just factually wrong. I mean, what’s happened in Anbar is unbelievable. I was there in early June, I had been there six months before, and you know, John McCain and I were there together. We wanted to go into Ramadi, and they wouldn’t let us go in, because it was unsafe. This time, I went in, walked around to the markets, stopped and got some ice cream with a bunch of kids. I mean, it was, thank God, very different. And the reason that happened is one, in my opinion, the surge, because the increase in Marines in Anbar Province said to the Iraqis, most of whom are Sunni in that province, okay, the Americans are not turning tail and leaving. Second, they saw what al Qaeda was doing. They saw that these people are fanatics and killers and their enemy,  and they decided if the Americans are willing to stay here and help us a little bit, they’re really much more on our side than al Qaeda is. And of course, they’re right. So it was, it was in fact the bravery of the American troops which encouraged the Sunnis to begin to take, the tribes to take on al Qaeda. And the story is really the most encouraging thing that’s happened in Iraq in a long time, and not in spite of our troops, but in fact because of them.

Read the rest here, or listen to the rest here.  Lieberman has a lot to say, and you can tell he's not very happy with the performance of this current crop of Democrats when it comes to national security.

Yesterday, Chuck Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, took to the Senate floor and inexplicably denied any success of the surge in Iraq, when even elected members of his own party who have been staunch critics of the President's Iraq policy have come back from inspection tours of Iraq touting the surge's success.  But he did so in a way that slandered the American troops, denying they were involved in anything that could be perceived to be a success regarding the surge.  Here's what Rush called this morning Schumer's macaca moment:

The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: "We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves."

Again, Schumer is saying the only perceived success in the al-Anbar region is specifically due to the failure of our American troops. 

Today, Schumer again rose to speak on the floor of the Senate, and attempted to walk back from what he said yesterday.  You can see the video for yourself.  Here's his three minute prepared statement he read:

First, I know we all have the deepest gratitude and respect for the sacrifice of the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, the troops are doing their job.

Yesterday, the inability of U.S. troops to provide protection caused tribal sheiks to give up on expecting any help from the U.S. military. Today, after receiving the ire of people furious that he slagged on the troops, Schumer feels the need to praise the troops.  It is hollow praise.

I'm concerned, however, that their mission is not worthy of their great sacrifice, especially the President's surge.  The surge, despite earlier reports this week, has failed to meet the objectives set out by the President. And the President can't change that fact by changing the goal. He's now claiming progress in Iraq as evidence that the surge directed at Baghdad is working.

Here, Chuck Schumer is introducing another historical rewrite, one newer than yesterday.  The surge was directed at Baghad. Get used to that meme, because that's now the measure by which Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will try and claim failure.  They will want you to believe that the surge was never meant to do anything except try and pacify Baghdad.  It wasn't.  On the White House's website, a site that's available to Schumer's staffers, dated January 10th of this year, the outline of the surge says the following:

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security

Coalition:

• Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.
• Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.
• Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.
• Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants

So Schumer is lying about the original goal of the surge.  It wasn't just to pacify Baghdad.  It was to fight al Qaeda where they were, which at the time was in Anbar, and to help locals hold those areas.  That's now happened.  Schumer's denial is not based on anything resembling facts or evidence.

While the President has claimed progress in Anbar, it was not the surge that brought the momentary calm to this region, because the surge was focused mainly on Baghdad.

Chuck Schumer thinks that by scripting out hollow support for the brave men and women in the military, he can walk back from the criticism he's received for slandering them.  But he's not walked back from anything.  He just doubled down.  He denies that our military had anything to do with the progress in Anbar, and he does so by using the false reality that the surge was focused mainly on Baghdad.  So he's now lying while using another lie as evidence.  

It's objective, as stated by the President himself, was to create breathing room for the central Iraqi government to make political progress.  Our brave troops have been in Anbar for years and years doing the first rate job they always do, in what is a very difficult environment. Now, however, some elements of the local population, and some of their leaders, have made common cause with the brave men and women of our military. They've cooperated with our troops out of distaste for the brutal methods of al Qaeda. While this is a welcome and helpful development, it's neither the foundation upon which a successful long term strategy can be launched, nor is it a result of the surge, which was targeted mainly in Baghdad.

One of the more nuanced pieces of disingenuousness in a while from Senator Schumer.  The surge is creating breathing space. And yes, our troops have been to Anbar before. But unlike the previous policy, once we cleared an area, there was no mechanism in place to hold the area once our people cleared it.  Now with the surge, that policy has changed, and the locals have taken notice of it.  That's one of the reasons why they're now cooperating.  But Schumer is now contradicting what he said yesterday and earlier today.  Yesterday, our troops' inability. Today, the local sheiks are cooperating with us.  You can't have it both ways. 

Senator Lieberman just said on a segment that will play back on tonight's Hugh Hewitt Show that Chuck Schumer's comments yesterday "were an insult" to the troops. He's right.  Chuck Schumer's denial of the surge yesterday was an insult, and today's attempt to reword it is nothing less.
  

And so the fall Senate session shifts into gear as the senior Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, takes to the floor after the August recess and gives his assessment of the surge in Iraq.  Here's the nub of what Schumer said in his 10 minute address to his anti-war fringe and, for that matter, the remnants of al Qaeda that have been getting wiped out in Iraq over the last four months.

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

Get it? Schumer is saying that the Bush-Petraeus plan is such a failure that the tribal sheiks had to take matters into their own hands because our military was so inept.  Our military had nothing to do with clearing out al Qaeda out of Ramadi and Baquba, news that will I'm sure come as quite a surprise to the brave men and women who distinctly remember things a little differently, having flushed out al Qaeda and all. 

But what Schumer says is important, because it telegraphs the tack that the Democrats are going to take in days and weeks ahead.  The Democrats have the same view of the military that they do of all Americans.  The average American, according to the liberal view, cannot make it on their own without government programs, regulation or control.  The same holds true for the military.  They cannot possibly get it right if they are led by a conservative commander-in-chief.  

Not only is Schumer calling the American military incompetent, he's calling them liars, as well.  Here's what General Petraeus had to say about Anbar on Hugh's show in July:

But the detention, or the capture or killing of the number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months, and weeks, actually, and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them…as you know, Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda. Eastern Anbar still has some, and we are working in that area. We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. So there has been considerable progress against them...

About a month later, Major General James Simmons, deputy commanding general for Multi-National Forces in Iraq, had the following to say about al-Anbar Province:

Well, the operation that you’re talking about that I mentioned the other day was Operation Lightning Hammer which was conducted by MND-North [Multi-National Division-North], which is headquartered out of Hawaii, the 25^th Infantry Division commanded by Major General Randy Mixon. They conducted a 12-day, large scale operation in Diyala to disrupt al Qaeda and other terrorist elements that are operating in the Diyala River Valley. And the operation went into the process of clearing about fifty villages and palm groves. It was a very successful operation, resulted in 26 al Qaeda members being killed, and 37 of them detained, 10 very large weapons caches were taken down in the process of this operation that went on there north and east of Baqubah.  

So this didn't happen, according to Chuck Schumer.  Generals Petraeus and Simmons are liars.  Sunni and Shia warlords got tired of our troops spinning their wheels while building up the surge size and chased out al Qaeda themselves.  

Ed Gillespie, Counselor to the President and present in al-Anbar over the weekend, told Hugh in an interview today that these same tribal sheiks that Schumer is calling warlords told President Bush that yes, they once fought against multi-national forces, but now have fought side by side with our forces to root out al Qaeda.  

Schumer's attitude towards the military, and the contempt in which he holds them, needs to be remembered as we approach November, '08.  There is one party that respects the military and appreciates the service they provide to all of us, and there is one party that uses them as a political tool, and are willing to completely rewrite history to deny any good the military does in order to make political gains.  Which one are you going to vote for?

Now that the August recess is over, the Senators have congregated back in Washington to begin their fall session.  The Democrats' feckless leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, took to the floor to describe his time off.  Here's what he had to say:



After a Robert Byrd-esque ode to the desert thunderstorm, he said he went all around his state, and his people complained to him about the high cost of energy (more government needed to regulate and tax oil companies and Halliburton), about the damaging effects of burning fuels on environment (more regulation and taxes on oil companies to stop global warming), about needing more affordable health care (more taxes and government to pay for Hillarycare II, coming soon if the polls are right in November, '08) about tuitions being too high (more government programs needed, paid for by ending tax cuts), and ending the war (cutting and running to appease their fringe base). So in other words, his "people" are telling him exactly the same things he said he would tackle when the Democrats took over the Senate eight months ago.  So if Nevadans are still calling for the same things that Reid and the Democrats were touting as agenda items at the beginning of the year, that tells me they've failed on those five benchmarks.  Maybe we need a new direction in the Senate.  Maybe this failed policy of Democratic leadership should be recognized for what it is and then we can begin with a change in strategy.

A little bit later, however, Reid bore down on Iraq, especially with the news on the surge being what it is, and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker coming to town in a week.  Here's what Reid had to say about that:



So above all, we need to continue to push for an end to the war.  Senator Reid hopes President Bush's report will finally do the right thing and change the mission and reduce troops...but he says he'll receive the report with an open mind, followed by the death and injured count, and the same tired mantra from the anti-war left.  Note for the record that the fall session is officially 20 minutes old at this point, and Harry Reid has already told a whopper to the American people.  He has absolutely no intention on keeping an open mind to what Petraeus, Crocker and Bush may have to say next week.  His mind is made up.  If Senator Reid were Pharoah, Moses and the Jews would still be stuck in Egypt. 

Then, predictably, Reid used as his new line in the sand from which to declare defeat the meme that there is not enough political progress in Iraq to warrant the continued presence there.  Keep in mind that the surge didn't achieve full strength until June of this year, or roughly four months.  He's right.  Shame on those Iraqis for not fully constituting a new government out of the ashes of generations of brutal dictatorship while simultaneously building and training a military to root out thousands of foreign jihadists and other militant puppets funded by either Saudi or Iranian elements in the last four months. I mean, look what Senator Reid has done in the last four months.  He brought up the immigration bill in the Senate twice...and got his teeth kicked in.  He brought up multiple resolutions to begin precipitously withdrawing troops from Iraq...and got his teeth kicked in.  He did get a minimum wage bill passed, although unlike the Iraqis, he was able to do that without targeted by rogue Shia or Sunni militias in Searchlight, Nevada.  

Should the Iraqis be doing more on the national level to promote reconciliation? Of course.  But it still seems rather silly that the leader of one part of the American national government, one that has had such a lousy list of accomplishments in eight months, can call for a complete democratic political birth in a country still weeding out infested insurgents in half the time he's had to get stuff done.