Reid, Pelosi Lack Al-Maliki's Faith, Spine

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are, in a politically correct euphemism, “diplomatically challenged.” This condition has manifested itself through various symptoms over the past six months, including Pelosi’s unconstitutional and borderline treasonous “diplomatic” visit to Syria, Harry Reid’s declaration to the world and the enemy that “the war is lost” in Iraq, and their newest premature and impatient judgment that the surge strategy currently underway in Iraq is a failure, giving even more encouragement to the enemy attempting to destroy Iraq’s democratically elected government. Despite the pleading of Iraq’s parliamentary leaders and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki for the U.S. to remain steadfast in its defense of the Iraqi democracy, the pleas have fallen on Reid’s and Pelosi’s deaf ears, blind eyes, and cold hearts, resulting in an international cold shoulder that is the antithesis of responsible diplomacy.

Never mind the fact that Reid and Pelosi have judged the surge a failure 3 months in advance of the scheduled progress report to be delivered by General Petraeus in September. Never mind the fact that Petraeus’ current summaries reveal significant reductions in violence and increased rebuilding in the Anbar province. Reid and Pelosi remind me of a line from the George Banks character in Disney’s Mary Poppins. While in a particularly irritable mood, Banks sits down at the piano in his home, plays one note, and promptly judges that the piano is out of tune. He then chastens his incredibly patient wife for allowing the piano to have become out of tune. He states to her, “When I sit down to an instrument, I expect it be in tune.” Mrs. Banks points out, “But dear, you don’t play.” George Banks, in classic Reid/Pelosi mentality, shouts in response, “Madam that is entirely beside the point. Kindly do not cloud the issue with facts!”

What are the facts on progress in Iraq and the effectiveness of the surge strategy? General Petraeus stated that the results thus far have been mixed, with “breathtaking” achievements in some provinces, but increased violence in others. Reid and Pelosi do want their issues clouded with facts, and so they choose to ignore Petraeus’s explanation that the surge strategy itself draws more terrorists and insurgents into confrontation, and this naturally produces statistical increases in casualties on both sides in the short term. They also choose to ignore Petraeus’s reports that the Iraqi Army has increased its enrollment by 20,000 men so far this year and it continues to grow steadily. It now stands at approximately 120,000-150,000 and is becoming better trained, better equipped, and more capable with each passing month. More importantly, residents in some provinces, Sunni and Shia, have risen to take up arms against al Qaeda, recognizing the terrorist group as their common enemy. The result has been a complete retreat of al Qaeda from those provinces. These are the facts of the surge strategy thus far, but Reid and Pelosi want no silver linings found in their clouds. From a letter to the White House written jointly by Reid and Pelosi:

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

The defeatist attitudes displayed by our Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are in starkly embarrassing contrast with the optimism and faith in democracy displayed by Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. I have recently been reading Never Give In! The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches, particularly those speeches he delivered personally or via radio to the citizens and government of the United States from 1940 until the attack on Pearl Harbor. In every speech he patiently and graciously attempted to convince the American people that their interests were tied to Britain’s and to join directly in the battle to preserve freedom in Europe rather than remain entrenched in isolationism. The tone of those speeches, in trying to convince America to join a war that would surely engulf it eventually, was eerily reminiscent of Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s current pleas for America to stand firmly by its new democratic ally in a war for freedom already in progress.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal contained a column penned by Prime Minister Al-Maliki entitled, “Our Common Struggle,” in which the Iraqi leader offered an eloquent appeal for America’s steadfastness and patience, lacing his arguments with historical precedent and providing an internal audit of the current conditions in Iraq. It should be required reading for all members of Congress, all members of the media, and all Americans who insist that Iraq is a “quagmire,” “failure,” or that “the war is lost.”

Here are some of the highlights from the Prime Minister’s OpinionJournal piece, but I recommend reading it in its entirety:

Under the Baath [Saddam] tyranny, Iraqis were to endure a brutal regime the likes of which they had never known before. Countless people were put to death on the smallest measure of suspicion. Wars were waged by that regime and our national treasure was squandered without the consent of a population that was herded into costly and brutal military campaigns. Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.

It is perhaps true that only people who are denied the gift of liberty can truly appreciate its full meaning and bounty....

….War being what it is, the images of Iraq that come America's way are of car bombs and daily explosions. Missing from the coverage are the great, subtle changes our country is undergoing, the birth of new national ideas and values which will in the end impose themselves despite the death and destruction that the terrorists have been hell-bent on inflicting on us. Those who endured the brutality of the former regime, those who saw the outside world avert its gaze from their troubles, know the magnitude of the change that has come to Iraq. A fundamental struggle is being fought on Iraqi soil between those who believe that Iraqis, after a long nightmare, can retrieve their dignity and freedom, and others who think that oppression is the order of things and that Iraqis are doomed to a political culture of terror, prisons and mass graves. Some of our neighbors have made this struggle more lethal still, they have placed their bets on the forces of terror in pursuit of their own interests.

When I became prime minister a year and a half ago, my appointment emerged out of a political process unique in our neighborhood: Some 12 million voters took part in our parliamentary elections. They gave voice to their belief in freedom and open politics and their trust imposed heavy burdens on all of us in political life. Our enemies grew determined to drown that political process in indiscriminate violence, to divert attention from the spectacle of old men and women casting their vote, for the first time, to choose those who would govern in their name. You may take this right for granted in America, but for us this was a tantalizing dream during the decades of dictatorship and repression.

….Iraq is well on its way to passing a new oil law that would divide the national treasure among our provinces and cities, based on their share of the population. This was intended to reassure those provinces without oil that they will not be left behind and consigned to poverty. The goal is to repair our oil sector, open the door for new investments and raise the standard of living of Iraqi families. Our national budget this year is the largest in Iraq's history, its bulk dedicated to our most neglected provinces and to improving the service sector in the country as a whole. Our path has been made difficult by the saboteurs and the terrorists who target our infrastructure and our people, but we have persevered, even though our progress has been obscured by the scenes of death and destruction.

Daily we still fight the battle for our security. We lose policemen and soldiers to the violence, as do the multinational forces fighting along our side. We are training and equipping a modern force, a truly national and neutral force, aided by our allies. This is against the stream of history here, where the armed forces have traditionally been drawn into political conflicts and struggles. What gives us sustenance and hope is an increase in the numbers of those who volunteer for our armed forces, which we see as proof of the devotion of our people to the stability and success of our national government.

We have entered into a war, I want it known, against militias that had preyed upon the weakness of the national government….We believe that the best way to defeat these militias is to build and enhance the capabilities of our government as a defender of the rights of our citizens. A stable government cannot coexist with these militias.

Our conflict, it should be emphasized time and again, has been fueled by regional powers that have reached into our affairs....

…We have come to believe, as Americans who founded your country once believed, that freedom is a precious inheritance. It is never cheap but the price is worth paying if we are to rescue our country.

“The war is lost,” “failure,” “little impact,” “has not enhanced.” Reid and Pelosi could use optimism and spine transplants. Iraq’s Prime Minister would be a highly appropriate donor.

Technorati:
Nouri Al-Maliki Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Iraq War Troop Surge Diplomacy Iraqi Democracy Quagmire David Petraeus Rebuilding Iraq

Romney Advisers Give Ill-Advised Advice

In the rush to differentiate themselves from President Bush as they vie for the GOP nomination, the current candidates and their advisers at times choose the wrong issues on which to differ from the President. Mitt Romney made this error yesterday, and he is paying a price for it among conservative elements of the Republican Party on the Internet today. One very brief AP story that appeared in this morning’s New York Sun is beginning to erode Romney’s carefully constructed image as a strong executive who can, when necessary, make tough decisions unilaterally if necessary. Here are the key paragraphs of the Sun article that has conservatives reexamining Romney’s potential leadership on national security:

Mitt Romney yesterday jabbed at President Bush, saying the image of America has suffered globally based on the perception that it invaded Iraq unilaterally.

"I do think that we have suffered over the past several years for a number of reasons, and I think you probably know what they are," the former Massachusetts governor told civic and business leaders, citing the absence of strong international support in the lead-up to the war.
"There has been the perception that we have not been as open and participative with other nations as is our normal approach," he said.

Romney’s campaign advisers chose poorly if they believe conservative voters consider America’s international image to have any bearing on the decisions a president must make. On the contrary, conservatives applauded President Bush for his courage in enforcing the UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein even when most of the international community refused to confront what all intelligence services agreed was a dangerous regime developing and stockpiling WMD. Conservatives likewise appreciated President Bush’s speech at the UN in which he challenged that body to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant in world affairs. The President made that statement and invaded Iraq not because they were globally popular actions but because, as Romney himself stated in the GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday, they were the right things to do based on available intelligence at the time. Not only does Romney now appear to be contradicting his defense of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, he is also heaping conservative scorn upon himself by making it seem as if he believes the U.S. should seek international approval before taking actions in the interest of national security.

As an example of how conservatives are interpreting Romney’s criticism of President Bush for not securing more international support for invading Iraq, the following are selected registered reader comments posted on Lucianne.com, a news forum popular among conservatives:

Comments:
#1 You dont ask for permission to do what is right Mitt. We are not beholden to international approval when it comes to matters of American safety. This statement proves Romney is not ready for the Oval Office.

#2 Mr. Romney: Maybe it will help the U.S. "image" if, as President, you schedule a world tour. You could travel to each world capital, and approach the Person In Charge on your knees, begging them, "Oh, please, please, please like us!" (preferably while weeping uncontrollably.) Start with Mugabe, then Castro, then Ahmadoinjihad, then Putin, then...

#3 I don't support Romney but this is probably taking something he said out of context to stir up trouble and slam Bush. Having said that, Romney should have known this would happen and should have been more on guard. If he did mean it, its more evidence that this guy shouldn't be president if he actually thinks that we had any control over that perception with a global MSM that was out to portray this as badly as they could.

#4 I sent Mitt an eMail telling him he isn't going to garner any primary votes with tactics like this. Conservatives and republicans don't judge America's success by how much the Europeans like us. One thing the president has done right is ignore the whining of our foreign enemies (although he is starting to weaken).

#5 I agree that it has been the media that has caused the US perception to be sullied. But that in no way a subject for a presidential candidate venue to discuss. There are many more important things that to harangue about what the feeling abroad is of the United States. Just look at the requests for immigration and look at the southern border and one can see the true feelings about this country. I also don't think we should have to have the worlds permission to defend our interests either. Mess with the bull and expect to get the horns shoved up you Heine! The President did what a good portion of the citizens and the congress approved of felt was necessary, and that was to take regimes out of existence that were a threat to our sovereignty and well being.

#6 #4 I did the same thing! This article so angered me I had to send Romney an email & tell him this kind of rhetoric is expected out of the mouths of rats & lamestream media hacks but it is not what we expect from our presidential candidates. Mitt is off my short list.

Romney supposedly hired an experienced team of campaign and political policy advisers, many of them veterans of Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004, yet none of them foresaw that Mitt’s comments would create this sentiment among conservative voters. Conservatives remember all too clearly the strenuous efforts the President made to convince nations who should be our allies to join together to enforce the UN resolutions and disarm Saddam. He could not force them to do what was right based on available intelligence, and so he gladly welcomed support from those he could count on (Britain, Australia, S. Korea, Spain-for a time-, Poland, and several others) and made the choice to do what was necessary. Conservatives are now questioning whether Romney is capable of making tough decisions without international approval, and that is not a quality any GOP candidate can afford to create doubts about if he wants to win the party’s nomination.

With a few brief sentences, Romney convinced many conservatives that he is not like President Bush- but on an issue where he should be convincing voters he would also do what was right for America while the rest of the world stands on the sidelines. There are plenty of issues on which to demonstrate a difference from the President, like illegal immigration or better management of the Iraq War, but Romney and his advisers chose poorly and voters may associate Romney’s criticism with another Massachusetts politician’s attacks on President Bush for his allegedly poor relations with other nations. After all, that was one of the central themes in John Kerry’s bid for the presidency in 2004: restore America’s international credibility. Romney should be wise enough to recognize that most of the nations that stood idly by when we invaded Iraq have undergone political changes, with conservative leaders who work well with President Bush winning elections. Germany, Canada, and France are all under new conservative leadership and each has vowed to restore better relations with America now, not waiting for a different American president to be elected.

America’s international image is strongest when it demonstrates strong leadership and leaves no doubt that America will keep its word, honor its commitments, and defend and advance freedom at every opportunity. If Romney wants to cast himself as a strong executive, he should make it clear that the President was right to invade regardless of international opinion and that he would do likewise if other nations refuse to join in their own defense. Romney’s campaign should learn from this misstep and give more consideration to how the media will present the candidate’s statements and how that will influence conservative interpretation. In just a few sentences, Romney lost several potential votes on the conservative news forum quoted above. That was just one such Internet forum, and the reaction on others is similar. Despite the President’s low approval ratings, GOP candidates should exercise caution and good judgment when choosing the issues on which they want to distance themselves from him. This was not one of them, much to Romney’s chagrin. With Fred Thompson definitely entering the race in July and Newt Gingrich waiting in the wings in case he is "drafted" by the GOP, Romney cannot afford any more ill-advised advice from his campaign advisers.

Technorati: Mitt Romney George W. Bush Iraq War International Opinion Presidential Candidates Unilateral Action Bush Administration Critics International Diplomacy

"Pariah Kerry" Woos Swiss with New Hit: "America is a Pariah"

The dictionary defines a pariah as “somebody who is despised and avoided by other people.” Synonyms for pariah include exile and outsider. Considering John Kerry’s tearful decision to not run for president again in 2008 after realizing that he is a pariah within his own Democratic Party, it should not surprise anyone that Kerry is out on the anti-American lecture circuit speaking about pariahs. So “avoided by other people” was Kerry last fall prior to the mid-term elections, that his swipe at the intellect of US soldiers (charitably and inaccurately labeled a “botched joke” by the media) resulted in his disgraced withdrawal from scheduled campaign speaking engagements on behalf of Democratic candidates. By order of the DNC, Kerry was muzzled until after the 2006 mid-terms were concluded.

After coming within 118,000 votes of winning the presidency in 2004, Kerry is now an outsider within his party, despised and avoided by the US military, and exiled to speaking in front of the only friendly crowds available to him, i.e. America-bashing international groups such as the World Economic Forum, which he addressed on Saturday in Davos, Switzerland. Responding to a question regarding whether the Bush Administration had failed diplomatically with Iran prior to the “election” of the radical Ahmadinejad, Kerry could not restrain himself from declaring that America had failed in nearly every aspect of foreign policy under Bush. He expanded that sentiment by stating that America is now an “international pariah.”

According to Kerry, American’s have an “unfortunate habit” of looking at America through the American lens, and not engaging in the Anti-American self deprecation that has become a staple of liberal ideology. A twin doctrine, of which liberals are equally enamored and which was touted by Kerry in Davos, is that national security is best achieved through international diplomacy. When the issue of America’s national security is being considered, Americans want their elected officials to do so through the American lens. No other nation will or can protect America, and thus our defense and security policies should be promulgated based on what is America’s best interest for national survival and cultural preservation.

It seems diplomatically schizophrenic to belittle your own nation as a pariah that is “sending a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy” to the world, while simultaneously claiming to seek national security through diplomacy. Kerry’s idea that Americans should view America not as an ideal for the world to aspire to, but rather a pariah as seen through the lens of “other cultures and histories,” is sadly embraced by the current leadership of the Democratic Party. Kerry compares America with the rest of the world and sees only its faults and blemishes. Yet, as author Mark Steyn argues effectively in his book America Alone, what nation would Americans like Kerry prefer? Why are Democrats so insistent that America become more like other nations, particularly Europe? Is it the appeal of the utopian socialist dream of mandatory national healthcare and economy crushing national pensions? Is it the absence of an armed citizenry? Is it the high unemployment rate endemic to EU countries?

Kerry and those who share his views should remember, as Steyn reminds with unmatched clarity, that those countries poured unlimited funds into guaranteed healthcare and retirement pensions because they left their national security expenses to the only nation capable of protecting them: America. Even without bearing the expense of their own defense, the EU nations have proven incapable of financially sustaining these programs into the near future due to demographic decline and increasingly indolent populations too dependent on the state to be entrepreneurs or productive workers.

Kerry and the Democrats claim they want to improve America. Why not start that quest for improvement by ceasing to join the anti-American choruses of Europe and radical terrorist sponsors like Iran? There is nothing wrong with seeking improvement in something you love, and Democrats are quick to defend their patriotism and love of country. However, one does not achieve improvement through constant America-bashing on the international stage.

Just as one could never hope for marital bliss while repeatedly belittling and exposing the faults of one’s spouse, anti-American remarks from its own elected officials will never result in a strong and admired nation. Contrarily, if one constantly praises one’s spouse and offers loyal encouragement to a spouse’s efforts to improve, marital bliss is entirely likely. Like the self-improving spouse, Americans are an optimistic people who thrive when given the freedom and encouragement to find new solutions to old problems. Unfortunately Kerry and many others in his party offer only criticism to please America-haters instead of investing their collective intellect and energy into creating identifiable solutions.

Such remarks further illustrate why politically savvy Democrats have shunned Kerry and declined to give him a second chance for the presidency in 2008, not out of disagreement with his “America is to blame” ideology, but as a practical matter of political survival. By calling America a pariah at every opportunity, Kerry has personally become the embodiment of the word.

Technorati Tags: John Kerry Pariah World Economic Forum Davos Switzerland Anti-Americanism European Union Mark Steyn liberals International Diplomacy