House Floor Vote On Iraq 403-3

From the Washington Times:

The House last night overwhelmingly voted down a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as Republicans tried to draw a line in the sand after a week's worth of back-and-forth charges over the war.
    The resolution failed 403-3, with six voting present. Those voting for it were Democrats Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.
    Republican leaders wanted to force Democrats to take a stand on whether they endorsed Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John P. Murtha's Thursday proposal to begin a six-month withdrawal from Iraq.
    Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, put a resolution on the floor for a vote urging "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Aberdeen Fitness Center

I have been a member of the YMCA for many years now, and before I came to Aberdeen I worked out at Jack LaLannes.  The new Aberdeen Fitness Center is the nicest health club I have ever seen.  It is a sign, for those who are looking for such signs, that Aberdeen is investing in its future.  Such a sight makes Aberdeen much more attractive to persons and businesses who might locate here. 

It does seem a bit of a gamble.  The space heated over the pool area is enormous.  But the weight-lifting floor is magnificent, and the steam room is perfect.  If you live in the area, check it out.

200,000 Jordanians vs. Zarqawi

This from Powerline:

We're a day late with this, but it's worth noting, for anyone who missed it, that yesterday more than 200,000 people demonstrated against terrorism and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Amman, Jordan. This photo is from the rally:

Zarqawi is making fast with apologies to the people of Jordan.  But I think that this stock has suffered an irreversible setback.  Everyone can see that he is the enemy of innocent Muslims as much as the enemy of the United States. 

Correction

In this post I referred to "Gary Gregory."  It's Guy Gregory, not Gary. 

Staying The Course

Kagan and Kristol explain the likely consquences of Rep. Murtha's proposals regarding withdrawl from Iraq. 

A Brief History of Iraq

Via Instapundit, here is an excellent and invaluable history of American dealings with Iraq since 1979.  This is a must read.  One of the longer sections contains a Senate speech by John "global test" Kerry from 1998.  This is back when Democrats made the political calculation that being tough on Iraq was in their favor.  Here's part of what John "we can't go it alone" Kerry said:

Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq's call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. We, on the other hand, have steadfastly insisted that sanctions remain in place until he complies. These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq's weapons capability. For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description, although our current activities seem to call into question whether or not one needs to be reminded of some of that description. Both of these countries have demonstrated a willingness to expend men, material and money to curb that threat.

France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.

Alito

Howard Fineman of Newsweek has a great article on Alito titled "The Alito Schism."   It's definitely worth an entire read.  Excerpt:

A top Democratic strategist tells me he now expects no more than a handful of Dems—eight at the max—to end up voting for Alito. I think it could be fewer. Remember, there are currently 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent in the Senate. We may well be headed for a “nuclear option” showdown, in which a Democrat would filibuster the floor debate on Alito.

Would the Republican leadership be able to muster the 60 votes needed, including a handful of Democrats, to shut it off? Not clear.

Would the GOP then go ahead and try to end debate with 51 votes, as opposed to the deeply traditional 60? Yes, I think the GOP would. That's the “nuclear” part.

The question must still be asked:  How will Tim Johnson vote?

Carrying A Big Stick

Fox News:  Murtha Stirs Policy Debate
Power Line:  Let's Take a Vote
MM:  Liveblogging the Iraq Showdown
Red State:  A Time for Declaration

Drudge Report

GOP to Dems: Pull Troops Now? Okay, then let's vote...
Troop resolution Tonight; hitting the House floor between 5:45 and 7:45...
Ultimate showdown...

IT'S A GO: IRAQ WAR SHOWDOWN IN CONGRESS: VOTE ON TROOP PULLOUT

Victory Is The Only Objective, Part III

Mac Owens compares Iraq and Vietnam in today's New York Post.  He concludes:

Things are improving in Iraq. Iraqi forces are getting better and political trends are moving in the right direction. But all signs are that our adversaries are counting on a repeat of our abandonment of Vietnam.

We owe it to the American soldiers who have been killed or wounded in Iraq and the Iraqis who have fought to create a new state to see this effort through to the end, preventing a replay of that disgraceful episode three decades ago. The Senate should be ashamed of itself.

Victory Is The Only Objective, Part II

And here is Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal: 

This week, in a not-much-noticed follow-on report from the 9/11 Commission, one finds this statement: "Preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other problems of national security because it represents the greatest threat to the American people."

By "terrorists" the commission means al Qaeda. By "weapons of mass destruction" it means nuclear devices--specifically the leakage of nuclear bomb-making material from former Soviet sites. The original 9/11 Commission's report said al Qaeda had tried to get nuclear WMD for 10 years, presumably while bleeding Afghanistan. Al Qaeda now is in Iraq. It is trying to push the U.S. out of Iraq. Some in Washington want a withdrawal from Iraq. If we do that before Iraq is secure, leaving its central provinces and neighboring nations as a jihadist transit point, will the commission's reasonable fears about WMD acquisition by terrorists ease? Duh.

Democratizing Iraq is where the hedge has been placed against Islamic extremism's proven compulsion to annihilate civilian populations--with airliners, humans as bombs and assuredly any WMD they can get--each weapon as morally repugnant as the next. Yes, Iraqi democratization may not work. But it is a bet worth making. As former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Fred Ikle wrote on this page not long ago, "The paroxysm after 9/11 would be a hiccup compared with the reaction the morning after one or more nuclear bombs caused massive devastation."

Against this, the current opposition spectacle in Washington is not edifying. How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency.

Victory Is The Only Objective

Here is Sen. McCain in yesterday's New York Post:

A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.

And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win.

The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq."

Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

Another Reason I'm Proud to be an American

And very glad not to be an Austrian.  This from the Yahoo News, hat tip to the Volokh Conspiracy:

Right-wing British historian David Irving, who once famously said that Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews, has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust.

Irving, 67, was detained Nov. 11 in the southern province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws making Holocaust denial a crime, police Maj. Rudolf Gollia, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Thursday.

. . . Irving remained in custody Thursday at a prison in Graz, 120 miles south of Vienna, the Austria Press Agency reported, although that could not be confirmed.

If formally charged, tried and convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office.

Its one thing to point out, as I am doing now, that Holocaust deniers are to legitimate historiography what astrologers are to astronomy, except that astrologers may be as nice as they are silly, while Holocaust deniers are invariably black of heart and twisted in mind.  In 1988 I was invited to an international conference on the Holocaust held in Oxford England where I delivered a paper supported the philosopher Emil Fachenheim's view of the radical evil of the Holocaust.  I confess that I have not read Mr. Irving's work and do not plan to.  Judging from what I do know of it, his ideas are as offensive as any that I could think of. 

But it is appalling that someone could be threatened with 20 years in the slammer for expressing ideas that are offensive to the state.  Freedom to think and to speak one's mind necessarily includes the freedom to think and express bad thoughts.  And such men as Irving do us a service, if only to remind us of how wrong it is possible to go. 

I flatter myself that such could not happen in the U.S.  Be assured of one thing: a Supreme Court consisting of Antonin Scalia and eight Scalia clones would strike down any such law in a heartbeat.  God bless America.

Clinton Iraq 1998: Just Google It!

Try this link, from Michelle Malkin's incomparable blog:

Poll Cats

Democrats have been enjoying the President's low approval ratings the way a heroin addict enjoys mainlining.  I can scarcely complain about that.  Its what I would be doing in their shoes.  Since I'm still walking around in mine, I would only point out that the Democrats in Congress are polling even worse.  The Wall Street Journal describes the latest Harris Poll numbers for Bush like this:

Bush's current job approval rating stands at 34%, compared with a positive rating of 88% soon after 9/11, 50% at this time last year, and 40% in August.

The comparison with the post 9/11 polls doesn't mean anything--that was an extraordinary situation--but the 50 and 40 do.  Bush has clearly had the worst year of his presidency.  But look at the numbers for Congress. 

Congressional leaders and both parties in Congress have also seen their ratings slip, with Democrats seeing one of the biggest dips in approval, the telephone poll of 1,011 U.S. adults shows. 

Vice President Dick Cheney's approval ratings slipped to 30% this month from 35% in August, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval ratings dropped to 34% from 40% and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's approval ratings fell to 52% from 57%, according to the poll.

At the same time, only a quarter of Americans polled give Democrats a positive rating in the latest poll, compared with 31% in August, while Republicans' approval ratings fell to 27% from 32%.

Its not hard to interpret Cheney and Rumsfeld's numbers, since they are so clearly tied to the war, and Americans have become very tired of that.   Its a little harder to understand why Condi Rice is polling so much better, since she is altogether a part of the same team, and is defending the same policies.  But why are Congressional Democrats numbers so low. 

I humbly submit that this is because the Democrat's strategy right now is so transparent.  With no policy of their own, they have been following the polls with the perfect alignment of a compass needle next to a bar magnet.  They may well be succeeding in their purpose, which is to depress Bush's numbers even further.  But they are hardly offering an honest alternative to Bush.

By all accounts, next year should be a good year for the Democrats.  With a disgruntled public voting in an off-year election in a President's second term, the Democrats ought to be expecting healthy gains.  That's me warming up the spin machine in case the GOP does loose control of one or both houses.  SDPolitics is definitely not a No Spin Zone.  But just right now that doesn't look to be in the cards.  And if the Democrats don't win big next time around, what will they have to look forward to?

FEC and Blogging

Red State:  FEC: Blogs Are As Much "Press" As Everyone Else

GI Blogging

A couple of new blogs run by soldiers in Iraq.  Check them out to understand what's really happening in Iraq.

Matt Lagrone:  Lag in Iraq

Sgt. Will Whitley:  Same Ole' Different Day

Question of the Day

Amy Proctor:

"If America invaded Iraq for the oil, does that mean we invaded Germany for the beer?" 

-Ruth Russell, HOOAH military wife

Daschle Spreading the Wealth

From today's edition of The Hotline:

BATTLE FOR THE SENATE: Daschle Weighs In On Three Dem Primaries

In a "New Leadership for America" PAC e-mail, ex-Sen. Min. Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) writes: "George Bush and his Republican Party have failed our country. ... It's time to put Democrats back in the majority. ... That's why my PAC has made early investments in virtually every competitive race for the House and Senate. I've made the decision to support great Senate candidates like (Hennepin Co. Atty.) Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota, (Aud.) John Morrison in Montana and ('02 GOV candidate/ex-AG) Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island. I hope you will help them too. These candidates will only win if we start early and work hard on their behalf. Over the course of the next few months, I hope you will consider a contribution to New Leadership for America so I can continue to support these candidates at the highest level and do all that we can to make this successful" (11/15).

Mitchell

Things are getting interesting in my home town:

Sen. Ed Olson is a Republican.

Former state Sen. Mel Olson is a Democrat.

They are both from Mitchell.

They are not related.

Both are members of the new Mainstream Coalition of moderate politicians who say they are standing up to critics who are not tolerant of their views.

Recently, former Republican state Rep. Dan Matthews of Mitchell said Ed Olson's membership in the group was a catalyst in considering challenging him in a primary.

That possibility didn't sit well with Mel Olson.

"If he (Matthews) does challenge Ed and defeats him, I will run for the Senate as an independent candidate in November," Mel Olson said.

It's not that he is champing at the bit to get back into politics.

"It seems to me statewide there is less and less tolerance to anyone who doesn't follow straight down the line," Mel Olson said. "In 1993, when I came to the Legislature, people felt strongly about things. You could not move them, but you could work with them on issues. When I left the Legislature, it was more that 'If you don't agree with me on the big thing, I won't work with you on anything.' "

Allen Lepke, chairman of the Davison County Republicans, was surprised by the possibility.

"I don't think it would be detrimental to politics in this county," Lepke said. "Both Dan and Ed are more than capable of being in the Senate. And both Mel and Dan are well known. It would be a good race."

Bison Blogging

New York Times:

Mr. Willcutt is no ordinary rancher. He manages more than 31,000 acres here in the heart of Phillips County, one of the most remote counties in the continental United States.

He has been entrusted with the bison, which are seed stock for the start of a restoration project by the American Prairie Foundation, which owns 11,000 acres and leases 20,000 more.

On Nov. 17, the bison will be turned out of their pen onto the dun-colored prairie in the middle of their ancestral home.

The foundation's project is one of several major independent efforts under way across the West intended to re-create North America's ancient prairie. The players include the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund and Ted Turner, the media mogul, who owns a large bison herd.

UPDATE:  The Argus also has a story on bison today.

 

Productivity

From the brand new Washington insider's magazine, Capitol File:

CAPITOL FILE, Holiday Issue, 2005

POWER SENATOR

Giant Killer: Senator Thune's having a productive year.

Although Senator John Thune had already served three terms in the US House of Representatives, the Republican's nail-biting victory in the 2004 South Dakota Senate race trumpeted his accession to prime-time Washington politics. By defeating then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Thune became the first political candidate to polish off a sitting Senate party leader in more than half a century--a feat that quickly earned him the nickname Giant Killer.

In less than a year in office, Thune has emerged as a popular figure in conservative Republican circles, a darling of television talk-show producers, and a skilled political playmaker. "It has been a very eventful year, but also a very productive one," Thune says. He counts among his victories a $268 billion federal highway bill and a $12 billion federal energy bill, both of which were boons to South Dakota farmers. But his ability to keep South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base from being closed by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission was perhaps even more significant for his career.

Still, political triumphs aren't the only accomplishments Thune has racked up since taking office. The July 27 issue of The Hill newspaper named the handsome 44-year-old one of Washington's 10 most beautiful people. "I took a lot of grief for that," Thune says. When he's not on Capitol Hill, Thune lives in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, with his wife, Kimberley, and daughters, Brittany and Larissa. -L.M.

The Fighting 13

The NY Sun has an article on the Fighting 13, the thirteen Republicans fighting against curbing the war powers of the president and which John Thune is part of:

But yesterday he [McCain] stuck out as a leader in the hawkish camp, one of the 13 senators, all Republicans, who opposed the Senate efforts to rein in the president's war powers. They voted not only against an attempt by Senator Levin of Michigan to hamstring the American war effort in Iraq, but also against the effort by Senator Warner of Virginia to second-guess President Bush and his generals. The fighting 13 are listed by name alongside this editorial, and they deserve the thanks of Americans and of Iraqis who want to win the struggle for freedom and against terrorism in that country.

UPDATE:  From Power Line:

Here is the list of the 13 Republican Senators who voted against the "cut-and-run light" resolution passed by the Senate yesterday (actually that label is too strong, but it felt good using it):

Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter.

Notice that the only northerner on the list is John Thune.

Johnson

Sibby is noting Tim Johnson's soft stance on terrorism by noting last week's Senate vote that prevented terrorists from challenging their detention.  Regarding the bill:

If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court.

Nearly 200 of roughly 500 detainees there have already filed habeas corpus motions, which are making their way up through the federal court system. As written, the amendment would void any suits pending at the time the law was passed.

For more regarding Johnson's vote on the habeas corpus bill, see this by Andrew McCarthy.

Democratic Irresponsibility II

I haven't had time to read CCK as faithful as I should, but I did notice my name yesterday.  Chad has these comments:

Ken Blanchard, professor at Northern State University in Aberdeen, has decided it is his turn to participate in the cult of personality surrounding George W. Bush.  I mean, really, everytime something goes wrong for President Bush it's someone else's fault:

As it is, the majority that now has lost faith in the war knows full well that the Democrats are doing no more than playing politics. Rockefeller votes for the war one day and heaps scorn upon the President the next day, depending on which way the wind is blowing. He refuses to take any responsibility for this own actions.

Just to warn readers, this is a very similar post to what you have been reading here the past couple of days. I'm still embarrased for those who continue to defend the President and the handling of pre-war intelligence, and try to blame Democrats for the war debacle.

Even the most careless reader will note that the quote says nothing at all about George Bush and his responsibility or lack thereof.  Bush firmly believed that Iraq possessed and/or was developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.  As President he was obviously responsible for that error. 

But Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority for war were responsible for their votes as well  To deny that responsibility, as Senator Rockefeller does, is craven and cowardly.  I thought it fair to point this out. 

Why did John Kerry vote in favor of war?  Because he was fooled by misleading intelligence?  You would have to be a first class chump to believe that.  He voted that way because he was afraid that WMD would be found, and that a vote against the war would then have doomed his presidential ambitions.  That looks like politics to me, and I can hardly despise it.  But surely Kerry has to take some responsibility for the outcome.  If he has taken any responsibility for anything, I missed it. 

Also, "every time" is two words, and "embarrassed" is misspelled. 

Daschle

The Hoya:  Tom Daschle's Desperate Cry for Attention

What is Normal in France?

I have been hearing for a week that the rioting in France is finally dieing down.  But the evidence always seems to consist of comparison between the number of cars burnt last night vs. the night before.  Now comes word that we may not be able to tell when and if the situation returns to normal because, apparently, rioting is normal in France.

Youths set fire to 374 parked vehicles before dawn Sunday, compared to 502 the previous night, police said. A week ago, 1,400 cars were incinerated in a single night.

If the downward trend continues, "things could return to normal very quickly," National Police Chief Michel Gaudin said, noting that French youths burn about 100 cars on an average Saturday night.

So the only thing unusual about the recent unpleasantness is the number of automobiles torched.  Zero seems to be set at 100 cars per Saturday.  When was the last time you heard about that?

Vine Deloria

The Seattle Times:  Vine Deloria, Indian historian and activist, dies at 72

ICT:  Vine Deloria, Jr.- In Memoriam

Indianapolis Star:  Vine Deloria Jr. promoted revised views of Native Americans

Politics of War

Fred Hiatt:

"Iraq's is a life-or-death agenda -- how to build a democracy," Mahdi said. "Others' are political agendas."

Whether Iraqis are in fact committed to a life-or-death struggle for democracy will become clear as its army does, or does not, continue to shoulder a greater burden. But the aptness of Mahdi's view of the United States is already evident in Congress, which pours most of its Iraq-related energy into allegations of manipulated intelligence before the war.

"Those aren't irrelevant questions," says Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). "But the more they dominate the public debate, the harder it is to sustain public support for the war."

What Lieberman doesn't say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy -- to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.

Indeed.

Rockefeller

William Bennett responds to Senator Jay Rockefeller's shameless lying.  Excerpt:

We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons — we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.

Schumer Fired Daschle Consultants

NY Newsday:

WASHINGTON - There's a certain breed of high-minded Democrat who regards squeezing campaign contributions out of the reluctant rich as disdainful.

And then there's Chuck Schumer.

"The important thing you need to know about Chuck is that when it comes to fundraising, he's essentially a force of nature," said Tom Downey, a Long Island congressman-turned-lobbyist who has been Schumer's friend since the 1970s.

Like a father frowning at an A-minus on an otherwise perfect report card, good is never quite good enough to Schumer when it comes to increasing the cash flow to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which he has chaired for a year.

"You meet his goals, then he calls up the guys you've raised money from and raises more from them directly," Downey added. "And then he says, 'Tom, go find me some new people.'"

By all accounts, that relentlessness is serving Schumer well as the campaign chairman, where he will quarterback the 2006 effort to attack the GOP's 55-45 advantage in the Senate. He's no Tom DeLay, but the role seems to be bringing out the Boss Chuck in Schumer, the son of an exterminator.

The senator has replaced virtually every staff member hired by his predecessor, Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), terminated consultants favored by deposed Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and demanded the right to review hirings made by committee-backed candidates.

Democratic Irresponsibility.

The Democrat's political strategy of repeating, over and over, the charge that the President lied about pre-War intelligence on Iraq, would be more likely to succeed if they were willing to take any responsibility at all for their own actions.  That they are not is evident in the following comments by Senator Rockefeller, posted on Powerline.

CHRIS WALLACE: But a lot of people – that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

But he did "vote for this thing."  If he were willing to take responsibility for that, and say--"lets be honest, both the President and many Democrats, including myself, screwed up.  The difference is that we can admit our mistakes and change course now that the awful truth is clear"--or something like that, then the Democrats could put Bush and the Republicans away.  As it is, the majority that now has lost faith in the war knows full well that the Democrats are doing no more than playing politics.  Rockefeller votes for the war one day and heaps scorn upon the President the next day, depending on which way the wind is blowing.  He refuses to take any responsibility for this own actions. 

And in charging the President with lying, they are themselves telling bold face lies.  Rockefeller is saying that, if he had had the information that the President had, he would not have voted for the war. 

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

(Video) SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

Obvious answer: Yes.  Does Rockefeller take responsibility?  Of course not.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

In short, Rockefeller is shamelessly lying about what actually happened. 

 

McCain Weighs In

Via Instapundit, here's John McCain on Face the Nation discussing  intelligence and the decision to go to war:

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman [sic] Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

Alito Night Music

So the pun was strained.  Its been a long weekend.  The New York Times weighs in today on Judge Alito.

Judge Alito has tried to reassure Democratic senators by talking about his respect for Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. It would be unwise to put too much stock in such reassurances. Even justices who value precedent, as most do, sometimes overturn existing case law with which they disagree. It should give Democrats pause that after Judge Alito's meetings with senators, both sworn opponents of Roe and fervent supporters have emerged reassured.

One group that clearly does not believe that Judge Alito will be a slave to existing Supreme Court precedents is the far right. Many of the same groups and individuals who waged a fierce campaign against Ms. Miers, President Bush's previous nominee for this seat, appear to be lining up in support of Judge Alito. Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who strongly opposes abortion, and other rights the court has recognized over the years, declared after meeting with Judge Alito, "This is the type of nominee I've been asking for."

Now lets think about this.  If Alito pleases both opponents and supporters of Roe, that's bad.  If he pleases opponents of Roe at all, that's bad.  The implication is that no judge should be confirmed who is not explicitly pro-choice.   This is of course the New York Times position, but they are not honest people, and so they won't tell you that.   They say they want a candidate who is in the mainstream, but they are in fact insisting on a candidate who is in the leftstream. 

What the Times cannot imagine is that conservatives might be honest when they tell people what kind of judge they want.  I am pro-life, but I would oppose a judge who was prepared to rule that the Constitution prohibits abortion.  I don't want people on either side reading their politics into the Constitution. 

 

SD History

AL:

The Center for Western Studies announces the publication of the first entirely new history of South Dakota in 40 years.

Responding to the need for a fresh interpretation of the state's past, this 650-page history, illustrated with more than 150 photos and maps, emphasizes the diversity of the state's cultural, ethnic and geographic identities.

Featuring essays by nationally recognized authors as well as full-length chapters by noted scholars, the history is intended for general readers, college students and teachers of South Dakota history.

Copies are available from The Center for Western Studies, Augustana College, 2101 S. Summit Ave., Sioux Falls. Cost for the paperback is $39.95; clothbound volumes cost $59.95.

My Favorite Democrat

I can't find much that Russ Feingold stands for that I agree with, but he is a man of honor.  George Will profiles him today.  Feingold is a man of strong conviction who does not stoop to demagoguery to advance his agenda.  You might say he has all the virtues of a Howard Dean with none of Dean's vices.  In 1998, when he was in a tough re-election race, Feingold stuck to his promise not to take PAC money, even though it nearly cost him his seat.  Even though I find the McCain-Feingold bill a seriously wrong headed piece of legislation, at least Sen. Feingold is willing to take his logic to its conclusion and argue for public financing of elections, something Sen. McCain won't do.  I happen to be strongly against public financing, but if one accepts the McCain-Feingold premises, then it is the only solution.  Also, Sen. Feingold voted against the war in Iraq, but I don't hear him complaining about "obviously fabricated" intelligence as some who did vote for the war are (someone correct me if I am wrong about Feingold).  I hope Sen. Feingold runs for president, that he remains a man of honor (it's tough to maintain one's honor when running for that office), and I hope his party nominates him. 

Who's Sorry Now?

Here is a nice run down of various quotes by high ranking Democrats arguing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that this made Iraq a serious threat to the world order in general, and the United States in particular. 

Three names listed here are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore.  For example:

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare  capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;  2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon     staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Here is Al Gore in September 2002, right after President Bush made his speech before the UN putting Iraq on notice that the United States would use force to gain Iraq's compliance with UN weapon inspections:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

If the Bush Administration "obviously fabricated" intelligence, would not members of the previous administration be in a unique position to inform us of that?  Or are we to believe that in the one year between Bill Clinton leaving the White House and George Bush putting Iraq in the "axis of evil" that the intelligence from Iraq had suddenly changed?  Are we to believe that by October of 2002, when Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq, that the Bush Administration had found scads of new information that rendered all Iraq intelligence in the Clinton administration moot and then willfully kept that information from Congress? Or that the Bush Administration had found, miracle of miracles, that Iraq  had actually come into compliance with international agreements on WMD, and the Bush administration knew it, and willfully kept that information from Congress?   Both of these scenarios strain credulity.

There were members of the Democratic Party, one of them right there in the Senate, who were able to decipher whether intelligence coming from the Bush Administration was "obviously fabricated."  Sen. Hillary Clinton wouldn't want her husband, the former president, to reveal state secrets, but she surely could have asked him, "Does this intelligence seem right to you?"  Could not other Democrats in the House and Senate have called upon former Clinton officials and ask them if this was accurate or "obviously fabricated" intelligence?  If the fabrication of intelligence was "obvious," would not former high ranking officials in the Clinton Administration be able to adjudicate that?  Again, because of the sensitive nature of intelligence they shouldn't  have gone into specifics, but surely they could have spoken in general terms and any "obvious fabrications" would have been exposed. 

This much is clear.  A Senator who was serious about his job should have asked these questions.  A Democratic Senator who was about to vote to authorize military action didn't need to rely on the Bush Administration to justify his vote.  There were members of his own party who surely could have spotted "obviously fabricated" intelligence.  If that Senator didn't go to these rather easily accessible sources of information, then he was derelict in his duty.  The point remains: if the Bush Administration "obviously fabricated" the intelligence on Iraq to lead us into war, then it seems the reasonably observant and diligent Senator would have figured it out. Given that there are no relevant distinctions between the Clinton Administration's pronouncements on Iraq and the Bush Administration's on the same, if one buys the "obviously fabricated" line, one has to believe that nearly miraculous events occurred in Iraq in the ensuing 21 or so months between the departure of the Clinton folks and the Senate vote on war. One has to believe that new intelligence was found that "obviously" countermanded the previous decade of intelligence, or that Saddam Hussein, after more than a decade of deception, woke up one day and decided he'd get rid of all his WMD's and stop all WMD programs and that the Bush Administration knew of this occurrence. 

If intelligence that led us to war was "obviously fabricated" then a reasonably diligent Senator should have figured it out.  So we are left with two conclusions.  Either the evidence was not "obviously fabricated" and those saying so are re-inventing history, or, if the evidence was "obviously fabricated," those Senators who voted for war in Iraq are not reasonably diligent.