FederalRepublic.net

Fox News is reporting that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a strong message to President Bush today:

On their first full day on the job, newly-elected Democratic leaders Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi fired a shot to the White House warning President Bush that it would be a mistake to consider a surge of troops as part of his revised Iraq policy.

-Snip-

The letter by Senate Majority Leader Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Pelosi of California cautioned that any plan of “surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed.”

I’m not surprised Democrats are already flip-flopping on their support President Bush’s new plans for Iraq. Like John Kerry and the rest of the liberal kooks, Democratic leadership never had a “plan” for Iraq. This is proven by a report by the Washington Post on Harry Reid in December:

The Senate’s top Democrat offered qualified support Sunday for a plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq, saying it would be acceptable as part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by 2008.

Read more about Senator Reid’s flip flop:

Reid OK With Short-Term Surge in U.S. Troops in Iraq

Reid: Brief Troop Increase OK in Iraq

Today the Butcher of Baghdad himself, Saddam Hussein, was brought to justice, courtesy of a hangman’s noose.

Iraq executed former President Saddam Hussein on Saturday, about two months after he was sentenced in Baghdad to hang for his role in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims in Dujail in 1982, according to Iraqi state-run television Iraqiya.

Source 

Read more:

Fox News

Yahoo

Reuters

Even though it’s passed Memorial Day, many patriotic Americans continue to support our troops day in and day out. I was recently clicking around the conservative blog world when I came across this picture, displayed by the official San Antonio, Texas website:

Pearl Harbor survivor Houston James of Dallas is overcome with emotion as he embraces Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr. during the Dallas Veterans Day Commemoration at Dallas City Hall on Thursday. Sgt Graunke, who was a member of a Marine ordnance-disposal team, lost a hand, leg and eye while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July of last year.

Even though it’s not Memorial Day or Veteran’s Day or any other holiday honoring our fallen brothers and fellow veterans, let us remember our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in this time of war. Their country has called for their service in this trying time in American and world history. Let us not forget their sacrifices or the honor they deserve.

From Fox News

WASHINGTON — President Bush laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington Cemetery on Monday, carrying on a tradition that has been held every Memorial Day for the past 138 years. He said afterward that fallen soldiers have died for a worthy cause.

“In this place where valor sleeps, we find strength in knowing that those who served in freedom’s cause have acted with principle and steadfast faith,” Bush told veterans and their families.

“Here in the presence of veterans they fought with and loved ones whose pictures they carried, the fallen give silent witness to the price of our liberty, and our nation honors them this day and every day,” he said.

Monday’s ceremonies mark the fifth Memorial Day in a row that the country has been fighting a War on Terror state of war, with military members confronting combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush said the ceremony is a chance for Americans to express their appreciation for those who have sacrificed their lives in the quest for freedom around the world.

“The markers here record the names of more than 296,000 men and women. Each of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines buried here answered the call to serve and stepped forward to protect the nation they love. All who are buried here understood their duty — they saw a dark shadow on the horizon and went to meet it. They understood that tyranny must be met with resolve and liberty is always the achievement of courage,” Bush said.

Link

“Another year, another Memorial Day.” Many people around the nation often forget what Memorial Day is all about or why it is celebrated. People often consider Memorial Day an excuse to hit the beach or put back some brews, but don’t really take time to reflect on its meaning.

Memorial Day is about honoring those who have fallen in the defense of our country. From the early days of the Confederation to those who have defended our modern republic, from the defenders of liberty in the Revolutionary War to those fighting for freedom in Iraq today, we honor those who have lost their lives and sacrificed for something greater than themselves - a liberty that is the envy of the world.

Today, let us remember our fallen comrades, our brothers, our neighbors, and friends. Let us remember their sacrifice and their courage as they stood for liberty and freedom against the tyrants of history. God bless our modern warriors and our great republic as we battle for liberty and justice around the world.

The Miami Herald has published an opinion piece explaining the irresponsible actions of Congress in trying to fund unneeded earmark appropriations:

It’s time for President Bush to brush the cobwebs off the veto stamp that has been gathering dust in his desk drawer ever since he became chief executive. The federal budget process is complicated, but the issue here is simple: An emergency supplemental appropriation — using federal money to pay for an emergency — should deal only with emergency issues. Until now, Republicans have insisted that there is no higher priority than funding to support our troops.

But with its approval levels approaching record lows and elections looming on the horizon, Congress is apparently trying to buy the public’s affection, even at the cost of imperiling the Iraq funding bill. The president requested $92 billion for war-fighting expenditures and some hurricane relief, but at last report the amount being voted on stood at $106.5 billion. Congress added provisions for still more hurricane relief on the Gulf Coast and a variety of so-called earmarks.

One of the ‘’earmarks'’ deserves special attention because it stands as a metaphor of Congress’ wild spending habits. It wasn’t too long ago that lawmakers approved a payment of $250 million to rebuild a railway line along the Mississippi coast after it was destroyed by Katrina. Now Congress wants taxpayers to spend another $700 million to relocate this same, privately owned rail line in order to build an east-west highway to spur economic development.

The president is right to threaten a veto of any bill that exceeds his request. The irrelevant add-ons may deserve consideration by Congress, but turning this bill into a Christmas tree is irresponsible.

Link

The more Congress is not responsible with the people’s money, the more anger it produces in the body politic. Out of control spending, unneeded regulation, and liberal political philosophy continue to make conservatives like me uneasy about where this country is going after the midterm elections.

Congress must return to fiscal sanity if it is ever to balance the budget or decrease the national debt in my lifetime. It seems politicians are more concerned about putting politics in front of true American priorities like entitlement reform, fiscal responsibility, and a strong defense. No wonder Congress has low approval ratings.

By Andrew Taylor

The Senate voted Wednesday to divert some of the money President Bush requested for the war in Iraq to instead increase patrols against illegal immigrants on the nation’s borders and increase security at U.S. ports.

An amendment cutting Bush’s Iraq request by $1.3 billion to pay for new Border Patrol agents, aircraft some fencing at border crossings widely used by illegal immigrants was adopted on 59-39 vote.

While the border security funds had sweeping support, Democrats and Republicans argued over whether the cuts to Pentagon war funds would harm troops on the ground in Iraq. The cuts, offered by Judd Gregg, R- N.H., trim Bush’s request for the war by almost 3 percent but don’t specify how.

Link

In a change of heart, the Senate has voted to divert money from the emergency funding bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina victims. Personally, I think this is a smart move. There is no doubt the U.S. - Mexico border needs stronger security to keep illegal aliens out of our country.

Though shifting money to border and port security is a great move, there are serious concerns about funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Iraq must take control of its own reconstruction and fund it via oil revenues. The Iraq War is an honorable war and I agree with its cause, but at some point, the United States must take a stand by giving the Iraqi government a nudge to fund reconstruction itself.

From CBS News

President Bush said Tuesday that “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons, but said he will continue to focus on the international diplomatic option to persuade Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions.

“We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we’re working hard to do so,” Mr. Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden.

Mr. Bush also said there should be a unified effort involving countries “who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon,” and he noted that U.S. officials are working closely nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany on the issue.”

-Snip-

Iran has so far refused to give up uranium enrichment, which the United States and some of its allies suspect is meant to produce weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Bush was asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“All options are on the table,” he said.

Link

In a show of strength, President Bush has revealed all options are on the table to difuse Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, a show of strength is not enough. The world must take action now to rid Iran of its nuclear technologies, before diplomatic efforts become meaningless.

A nuclear Iran would not only tip the balance of power in the Middle East from Isreal to Iran, but would bring a whole new dynamic to the Middle East peace process. Having an official goal of blowing Isreal off the map, Iran would bring its dangerous dynamic toward the destruction of Isreal and United States interests. Iran’s regime must be dealt with swiftly and harshly, with the world uncompromising and unappeasing. The world must come together to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran, showing there is strength in unity.

By Robert Burns

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday he believes the public push by several retired generals to force him from office is going to die out.

“Well, you know, this, too, will pass,” he told Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show.

Several general officers, including two with recent experience as division commanders in Iraq, have criticized Rumsfeld’s management of the Pentagon and of the war, arguing that he should step down.

“I think about it and I must say there’s always two sides to these things, and the sharper the criticism comes, sometimes the sharper the defense comes from people who don’t agree with the critics,” Rumsfeld said.

He said he was pleased to see that retired Gen. Richard Myers, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who developed and executed the Iraq invasion plan, had rebutted the critics and expressed support for him. President Bush issued a strongly worded statement of support last Friday.

Asked by Limbaugh why certain retired generals had chosen to call publicly for his resignation, Rumsfeld replied, “Well, I just don’t know. I can’t climb into other people’s minds.” He noted that retired Adm. Vern Clark, a former chief of naval operations, had said publicly that Rumsfeld is a suitably tough-minded leader. Rumsfeld’s critics have said he is arrogant and disregarded the advice of military officers.

“So I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” Rumsfeld said.

Link

Like the criticism of other Bush Administration officials by the mainstream press, I too believe the call for Secretary Rumsfeld to step down will die down in no more than several weeks. The calls from Rumsfeld to resign have been shouted from the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003 by the Democratic Party and continued well into the 2004 general election cycle. This time, the call is no different and has demonstrated no real impact other than showing the bias of the left wing media and the obstructionism of the Democratic Party - a party of no ideas other than denouncing the Bush Administration and raising taxes.

The Washington Post

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to help the Bush administration’s effort to convince the U.N. Security Council that more concerted action is needed to stop Iran’s nuclear program. His loud announcement yesterday that Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium confirmed recent warnings by U.S. officials — dismissed by some as exaggerated — that Tehran’s nuclear program was fast advancing. His defiant and exaggerated claim that “Iran has joined the club of nuclear nations” ought to make clear to Russia, China and other Security Council members how seriously the Iranian regime is taking their demand that it freeze its enrichment work. That is: not seriously at all.

Though the technological breakthrough Mr. Ahmadinejad touted — the successful operation of a cascade of centrifuges to enrich uranium to the degree needed for nuclear fuel — leaves Iran well short of the means to build a nuclear bomb, it is significant. It ought to prompt some rethinking about how long it might be before the Iranian regime can back up, with a nuclear weapon, its president’s threat to wipe Israel from the map. Some in Washington cite a U.S. intelligence estimate that an Iranian bomb is 10 years away. In fact the low end of that same estimate is five years, and some independent experts say three. Iran has announced plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its plant in Natanz by the end of 2006; according to former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright, that many working centrifuges could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
 
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s provocative grandstanding also offers an answer to those who argue that his government would abandon its breakneck dash for an enrichment capability if only it were offered the right incentives — such as security guarantees and “a political dialogue” with the United States. Not only has Tehran shown no interest in previous carrots dangled by Europe and Russia, but its president clearly relishes a confrontation with the West. His answer to those Iranian moderates who worry that the country might be isolated, or economically harmed, is to point to the Security Council’s record thus far, which suggests there is no danger of such action.

Link

In light of the Security Council’s record in dealing with despot or tyrannical regimes in the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Ahmadinejad really has nothing to worry about in the short term. In my opinion, the United Nations and the European Union are short on forceful rhetoric and even shorter on consistency. The threats of the E.U. or the United Nations are nothing more than a deadbeat father telling his son to eat his vegetables “or else” at the dinner table.

The United States and its allies must take a hard line against Iran and not allow its regime to produce weapons of mass destruction. By threatening to wipe the nation of Isreal off the map, Iran has upped the political and emotional turmoil in the Middle East, representing a danger even Saddam’s Iraq never presented. The Bush Administration must make clear Iran will enjoy serious consequences, including the use of force against its regime, to prevent development of nuclear weapons.

In short, the world must not again turn to appeasement in order to “please” Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Appeasement did not work in World War I, appeasement did not work in World War II, and appeasement did not work in the Cold War. As Ronald Reagan once stood up to the evil that was the Soviet Union, the world must stand up to the threats presented by Iran’s despotic regime.

The Washington Post is carrying a passionate piece by Wade Zirkle arguing that Congressmen like John Murtha and Jim Moran are truly out of touch with not only their constituents, but with Pennsylvania military members. Take a look:

Earlier this year there was a town hall meeting on the Iraq war, sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), with the participation of such antiwar organizations as CodePink and MoveOn.org. The event also featured Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who had become an outspoken critic of the war. To this Iraq war veteran, it was a good example of something that’s become all too common: People from politics, the media and elsewhere purporting to represent “our” views. With all due respect, most often they don’t.

The tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. “If I didn’t have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops,” said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. “I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships. . . .”
 
“And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan — we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn’t come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That’s reprehensible. I don’t know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high.”

What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: “That wasn’t in the form of a question, it was a statement.”

It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol. This exchange, captured on video (it was on C-SPAN), has since been forwarded from base to base in military circles. It has not been well received there, and it only raises the already high level of frustration among military personnel that their opinions are not being heard.

In view of his distinguished military career, John Murtha has been the subject of much attention from the media and is a sought-after spokesman for opponents of the Iraq war. He has earned the right to speak. But his comments supposedly expressing the negative views of those who have and are now serving in the Middle East run counter to what I and others know and hear from our own colleagues — from junior officers to the enlisted backbone of our fighting force.