Blog @ MoreWhat.com

In her own words and as of this writing still published on speaker.house.gov, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi documents, for all to see, her long standing and steadfast support for the Democratic party’s surrender agenda as well as other failed initiatives that provide nothing positive for the United States of America.

In addition to the failure of a 100 hour, day, month, lifetime, whatever legislative agenda her promise to drain the swamp and end the culure of corruption in Washington which she blamed entirely on the GOP has not been honored. The leading Democratic party Presidential candidate has since embraced lobbyists as real Americans and been shown to accept campaign contributions from numerous criminals with no intervention from Pelosi or her party. The swamp endures.

With a press release title like, ‘Pelosi: Bush and His Republican Allies Are Preventing Extra Funds from Reaching Our Troops’, Nancy Pelosi continues to adhere to her surrender strategy even after the Congressional approval rating has fallen to the lowest level in many years. There is no evidence to support her claim that the American people desire surrender. To attempt to shift the blame for not providing timely appropriations to the troops on President Bush is as shameless a tactic as her surrender strategy which this latest ploy supports.

Here is a review of the surrender strategy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends:

source: speaker.house.gov
11/21/2006
“The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said. “We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq.”

Apparently Nancy Pelosi only considers the like minded far left fringe as ‘the American people’. Anyone who supports the troops and their mission for victory in Iraq is not included by Pelosi since they oppose surrender.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/05/2006
“We predicated some of the conversation in a letter that Senator Reid, myself and others in the leadership sent to the President on October 20. At that time, we reiterated our concern that ‘stay the course’ was not a strategy, but a slogan. We urged the President to work with us in a bipartisan way and we presented four changes to current policy: first, redeployment and transition of our troops out of Iraq; second, disarm the militia; third, have an international conference to discuss with the countries in the region the stability and reconstruction of the region, especially Iraq; and fourth, to amend the constitution to relieve some of the civil strife and to spread some of the political advantages that the elections there promised.

The last two excerpts are from just after the 2006 midterm elections. From the beginning the Democrats as stated by Pelosi above have steadfastly supported surrender in Iraq. Their first of the four misguided policies above calls for ‘redeployment and transition out of Iraq which is plainly surrender. That is followed by a near impossible task after a suggested surrender, an appeasement and unnecessary meddling in Iraqi affairs after departure. But that is the way of the Democratic party, now and in the past.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/06/2006
“The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President’s Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.

“Months ago, House and Senate Democratic leaders suggested to the President that he implement one of the Study Group’s chief recommendations – to change the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and support, which would enable the redeployment of U.S. forces to begin. Now that the Study Group has endorsed this proposal, I hope that the President will recognize that he must take our policy in Iraq in a new direction.

Pelosi touts the Iraq Study Group as well as the recommendations of the 911 Commission Report. Funny how she makes no mention of Section 4.5 of the 911 Commission which details failures of the Democratic party against terrorism and Osama Bin Laden leading up to the attacks on the WTC in September 2001. That report details the failures of the Clinton Administration in stopping Osama Bin Laden and perhaps the 911 attack. The ABC airing of the ‘Path to 911′ was met with oppostiion from those associated with or involved in that failure. But the docudrama was derived from the 911 Commission Report and you can read it for yourself.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and friends have supported surrender in Iraq and still do. Even with the success of the troop surge that they have criticized for nearly a year they continue to be fully invested in surrender and appeasement of terrorists. Do they even know how silly they look?

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, Church and State, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
15 November 2007U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Pentagon funding shortfalls resulting from congressional debate about the conduct of the Iraq war could result in difficulty supplying the troops and significant layoffs in his department. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

Secretary Gates says there is a “serious misconception” in the Congress that he can move money among accounts in his department in order to provide for the troops in action. He says if the Congress does not pass a war funding bill that President Bush can sign soon, he will have to take drastic action.

“The military would cease operations at all army bases by mid-February of next year,” said Robert Gates. “This would result in the furloughing of about 100,000 government employees and a like number of contractor employees at army bases. These layoffs would have a cascading effect on depots and procurement. Similar actions would follow for the Marine Corps about a month later.”

Secretary Gates says preparations will have to be made this week to put such a plan into action, and formal notices will have to go to employees and contractors by mid-December.

The secretary appeared particularly frustrated by the ongoing congressional debate because, he says, the president has already made many of the policy changes the Congress wanted - announcing the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq and a change in their mission to more training and supervision and less direct combat.

“I think that the debate has really moved on,” he said. “It’s really not about principles, it seems to me, any more. It’s about pacing. And that’s where I think deference should be paid to the views of those conducting the operations.”

Secretary Gates says U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Washington agree that the drawdown of U.S. forces must be done slowly and carefully to avoid losing the gains made by this year’s surge of forces and change in counterinsurgency strategy.

The secretary also said he shares some of the concern expressed by members of Congress about the lack of progress on key issues by the Iraqi government and parliament. But he says there has been some progress that had not been anticipated, and reconciliation and governmental improvements on the local level are starting to put pressure on national leaders.

“We are beginning to see some very tentative indications that there is increasing pressure from some of the provinces on the ministries and on the central government to get on with sorting out some of these other problems and to become more effective,” said Secretary Gates. “So we need to keep the pressure on, and I think we will.”

Gates would not endorse comments by the number two U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, who was quoted in Thursday’s Washington Post as saying the United States would have to review its Iraq strategy if the Baghdad government does not make a breakthrough on reconciliation by next summer, when the first phase of the U.S. troop drawdown will be in full swing.

By Barry Newhouse
Islamabad
09 November 2007

Newhouse report - Download MP3 (569k)
Listen to Newhouse report

Pakistani forces have stopped former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto from leaving her home to lead a demonstration against the country’s emergency laws. VOA’s Barry Newhouse was at Ms. Bhutto’s Islamabad residence, where she spoke to reporters from behind coils of barbed wire.

Ms. Bhutto had hoped to speak before hundreds of thousands of supporters at a rally in Rawalpindi Friday, but instead addressed journalists and several hundred riot police outside her Islamabad residence.

She said the government had made strenuous efforts to prevent the protest, arresting 5,000 of her supporters, sealing off roads to Rawalpindi and dispatching thousands of troops to stop her from leaving her home.

“To stop one million people, they had to paralyze the whole government of Pakistan in the northern part of the country,” said Ms. Bhutto. “How long can they do this day after day? They can’t.”

Throughout the day, police arrested dozens of Ms. Bhutto’s supporters outside her home but allowed senior leaders of her party to move freely. Ms. Bhutto denied she had been placed under house arrest, but the police barred her from leaving her neighborhood.

Ms. Bhutto says that President Pervez Musharraf’s announcement of elections by February 15 was merely a ploy to quiet dissent. She said there is growing opposition to Mr. Musharraf.

“And I think the regime is trying to break this momentum by making vague promises that will give hope,” she said.

She says unless General Musharraf agrees to step down as army chief, reinstate the constitution, and hold elections on schedule in January, she will not negotiate with him. “The regime has a choice - either paralysis or to stop putting obstacles in our path,” said Ms. Bhutto.

The former prime minister says she still plans to lead a protest march early next week from Lahore to Islamabad. But following the security crackdown Friday on the planned Rawalpindi protest, it is unclear if Ms. Bhutto’s party can carry out that plan.

Mr. Musharraf imposed emergency rule last Saturday. The government has detained more than two thousand opposition figures and critics, and has imposed strict limits on the news media.

The president has said the emergency rule is needed to combat growing violence by Islamic militants. However, witnesses and opposition leaders say most of those detained were moderate members of the community, including judges, lawyers and human rights activists.

World leaders, including President Bush, have called on Mr. Musharraf to end emergency rule, retire from the military and hold elections as originally scheduled in January.

By Dan Robinson
Washington
23 October 2007
A Democratic lawmaker has apologized for remarks he made last week about the war in Iraq that angered opposition Republicans and were also condemned by fellow Democrats. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, where Congressman Pete Stark’s apology came after the House of Representatives rejected by a vote of 196 to 173 a Republican attempt to formally reprimand him.

Congressman Stark’s comments last week came as the House prepared for an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to override President Bush’s veto of legislation to re-authorize and expand a children’s health insurance program.

In arguing in favor of their measure, Democrats asserted that President Bush and Republicans were unable to find the funds for medical insurance for children while spending tens of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq.

At one point in the debate, Congressman Stark came to the floor and made these remarks. “You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it, to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq, to get their heads blown off, for the president’s amusement.”

Stark’s statement, which was widely published, provoked anger from Republicans who accused Stark of insulting the president and the U.S. military.

Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement calling the remarks inappropriate. House majority leader Steny Hoyer used stronger words, calling on Stark to apologize to the president and U.S. troops he may have insulted.

On Tuesday, the House Republican leader, John Boehner, introduced a measure to censure Stark. “On behalf of the courageous men and women of our armed forces, who are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security, I offer a privileged resolution that is on the desk,” he said.

The House rejected the resolution by a vote of 196 to 173.

Stark, who had come under pressure from the Democratic leadership, came to the floor. “I want to apologize, first of all, my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president, his family, to the troops that may have found in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on,” he said.

In a weekly news conference later, Democratic leaders described the matter as closed, and sought to turn the media’s attention to what Democrats say will be a new attempt to pass the children’s health measure, and negotiations with Republicans and the Bush administration about another bill dealing with warrantless electronic surveillance.

In recent years, Republicans and Democrats have fallen afoul of rules allowing the opposition party to demand that remarks on the floor be taken down or removed from the record.

During a 2005 debate on Iraq, a Republican lawmaker Jean Schmidt apologized for a statement suggesting that a key anti-war critic, Congressman Jack Murtha, was a coward.

Murtha himself issued an apology earlier this year for threatening a special spending request, known as an earmark, of a Republican lawmaker who questioned Murtha’s own special interest spending provision for his home district.

By VOA News
01 October 2007 Figures from the Iraqi government show that civilian deaths from violence in Iraq fell by more than half in September compared to the previous month.

The figures published Monday show that at least 840 civilians were killed in September, compared to more than 1,770 in August.

U.S. military deaths in September were at their lowest point in more than a year with more than 60 deaths. A U.S. military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox credited the decline in violence to the surge of American troops in Iraq, but he said the level of violence is still too high.

In developments Monday, a suicide bomber in the northern city of Mosul killed a university professor and wounded seven other people. The U.S. military said a U.S. soldier was killed by small-arms fire during combat operations in eastern Baghdad Sunday.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say military forces have killed at least 60 insurgents in operations since Friday. The U.S. military said Sunday that U.S. forces killed at least 20 insurgents who fired on an American air patrol outside Baghdad.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts

What would you expect from a group without the sense to understand the ‘larger issue’ they now claim as the excuse for actions denounced by anyone with a backbone? That’s right. More discussion of MoveOn since they so richly deserve every criticism directed at them. Was this said before? There are certain lines you don’t cross. And here is how MoveOn responds to their wake up call to do the right thing.

Yesterday, an organization so small its 17 employees don’t even have a central office, found itself under attack by not only President Bush, who said the ad was “disgusting,” but also by the Democratic-controlled Senate, which passed a resolution 72 to 25 expressing its own outrage. Many Democrats blamed the group for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war.

In an e-mail to its members last night, the group acknowledged that the content of the ad might have angered its allies but argued that a larger issue is at stake. “Maybe you liked our General Petraeus ad. Maybe you thought the language went too far,” they wrote. “But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad.”

This is the single largest example of the far left fringe base of the Democratic party that is being appeased and accommodated by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and many other Democrats who refused to acknowledge their over the top use of an ad in a national publication and the baseless attack on General Petraeus. A man with more honor and character than MoveOn could ever hope to achieve. But then, honorable achievements is obviously not something of which MoveOn would be interested.

Condemning MoveOn is the closest Congress has come to effortless bipartisan effectiveness since the performance ratings fell in the basement. Perhaps the Democratic party majority could seize the opportunity to acknowledge victory in Iraq is in this country’s best interest. Showing there is apolitical incentive to do the right thing might become contagious. Then the two parties could actually get something worthwhile completed and watch their numbers go up. Continuing to cozy up to MoveOn is not a recipe for success.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Had Congress and a large portion of the American public consistently, and without wavering, supported the mission in Iraq from the beginning and withheld criticism until after victory, the ‘enemy’ would not have been encouraged to continue.  Say all you want about why the US military is there but the fact remains they are.  And there is a better than even chance if the necessary support from home had been there, that same US military would be home by now, with victory.

So the point is that those who have adopted the left antiwar theme contributed in whole and in part to the difficulties faced in Iraq.  Senator Warner’s change of vote may be proof of that.  Not running for re-election may have given him the opportunity to vote his conscience rather than political strategy.

The White House’s big breakthrough came yesterday morning, when Warner announced that he had reconsidered. “It’s a change of vote for me,” said Warner, also a former Navy secretary, who will retire next year after completing five terms. “I recognize that.”

Some have said this proposal was an end around the Democratic party’s failure to convince enough GOP members to support surrender again.  It sounds wonderful to give troops a break from combat but not when it really is intended to speed depletion of available troops and thwart victory once again.

That the antiwar crowd continues their destructive message and attempts to convince others their actions support the troops is beyond comprehension.  Unless you understand the antiwar theme is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you can convince enough unsuspecting citizens that you have peaceful or humanitarian intentions the scam will work.  Make enough noise not supporting a war effort and you effectively support the other side, also known as the enemy.  Give the enemy enough incentive to continue a war and you have the self fulfilling prophecy.  If you say the war cannot be won, that we are losing and you support surrender the ability to win is at least hindered or delayed.

That is why the war in Iraq and any future war must be conducted like Desert Storm in 1991.  Get it done before the fringe left antiwar crowd has the opportunity to object.  While there are virtually no comparisons to be made between the 1991 war and the current conflict(s) with the exception of military forces being involved, with trends in terrorism the rules of the game have changed.  Therefore defending this country has just become much more difficult as the antiwar left will always have more time to launch opposition to that defense now that the instant war is less likely.

The ‘war on terror’ whether referring to current armed conflict or future events has complicated national defense options.  In past ‘conventional’ war scenarios armed conflict took place between two or more countries.  Terrorism has blurred the geopolitical nature of war.  Rather than accept the terrorist notion of armed conflict and allow complicit nations to escape responsibility for their involvement, a new method for evaluating national defense options should be adopted.

Every terrorist was born within a geopolitical boundary.  And every terrorist is a resident of some nation.  The national defense options should be based upon which nations produced the terrorists responsible for any act of terror perpetrated against another country.  The nation attacked by terrorists has the right to retaliate against the nation(s) who produced those same terrorists. Perhaps then nations who sponsor terrorism will understand their is a price for them to pay for such behavior.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Miller Center to Host National Debate on Future of U.S. Troops in Iraq on Sept. 18
News Source: Miller Center of Public Affairs

Sept. 14 — On Sept. 18 at 7 p.m., the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, in partnership with MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, will launch the inaugural event of its National Discussion and Debate Series. Four participants will argue the proposed resolution: “Keeping troops in Iraq is vital for America’s national interests in the Middle East” in a debate moderated by Margaret Warner, senior correspondent for PBS’s “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

Frederick W. Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an architect of the “surge” plan, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, an American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, will argue in favor of the resolution. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Chas Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and president of the Middle East Policy Council, will argue against it. More information, including research, news, audio and video, is available online at www.millercenter.org/debates.

The debate, the first in a series of five set to take place during the 2007–08 academic year, will take place in the historic Dome Room of the University of Virginia’s Rotunda. It will be webcast live and archived on the Miller Center’s Web site. PBS affiliates throughout Virginia and stations carrying the PBS World digital channel will carry the events live and in delayed format. The conversation has already started online via interactive group pages on YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Google and Yahoo.

The Miller Center has also partnered with the University’s Arts & Sciences Council to host a viewing party for students and the general public in the Newcomb Ballroom, beginning with a live debate screening at 7 p.m., followed by a Q&A discussion with two debaters afterward. From 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m., there will be an open forum on U.S. policy in Iraq.

The Miller Center’s newest initiative, the National Discussion and Debate Series will address major issues facing the United States, including privacy in the Information Age, health care, immigration and the changing nature of “family” in America. Its aim is to examine these issues in depth, and to contribute to the national conversation with a genuine, thoughtful give-and-take that will both enlighten people and provoke dialogue.

The debate will air on these Virginia PBS stations:

• WCVW 57 Richmond will carry the debate live at 7 p.m. on Sept. 18. (www.wcve.org)
• WCVE-23 Richmond will air it on Sept. 20 at 10 p.m. (ww.wcve.org)
• WHTJ-41 Charlottesville will air the debate on Sept. 20 at 10 p.m., and repeat it Oc.t 7 at 8:30 a.m. (www.wcve.org/whtj)
• WHRO-15 Norfolk will air the debate Sept. 18 at 8 p.m. (www.whro.org)
• WBRA 15 Roanoke/WMSY 52 Marion/WSBN 47 Norton will carry the debate live at 7 p.m. on Sept. 18. (www.wbra.org)
• WVPT—Virginia’s Public Television, 51 Staunton/WVPY 42 Front Royal, will air the debate live at 7 p.m. on Sept. 18, and repeat it Sept. 24 at 1 p.m. (www.wvpt.net)

The debate will also be broadcast on WVTF Public Radio and Radio IQ, a partnership between Virginia Tech and Ferrum College. WVTF will air the debate live at 7 p.m . on Sept. 18, and Radio IQ will rebroadcast it as part of its Evening Edition programming at 7 p.m. on Sept. 21 and 22. WVTF/Radio IQ’s coverage area includes most of Central and Western Virginia (www.wvtf.org).

For interested broadcast outlets, debate footage will be available via satellite. Coordinates: Echostar: AMC-2, transponder K-7, Slot A – Feed Time: 18:00 – 20:00 Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - TEST 18:00-19:00, AIR 19:00-20:00 w/ 00:15 approx. Confirmation # 213690. Uplink frequency 14126.5, horizontal. Downlink frequency 11826.5, vertical.

The second debate, set to take place on Nov. 13 in Washington, will focus on the resolution: “In the light of technological advances and the war on terror, Americans should lower their expectations for privacy.”

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=2824

By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill
11 September 2007

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker faced a second day of tough questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. A day after the officials testified at a House hearing, they appeared before two Senate committees Tuesday, to reiterate that the U.S. troop surge strategy is making progress and caution against a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. VOA’s Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

The appearance of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on Capitol Hill comes as Congress prepares to resume debate on Iraq as early next week.

Congressional Democrats, and some Republicans, who are frustrated with the slow progress being made toward political reconciliation by the Iraqi government, have called for setting a timeline to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as a way to press Iraqi leaders to make the necessary political compromises.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, underscored the point as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker prepared to testify before the panel.

“Presenting those political leaders with a timetable for transition is the only hope that Iraqi leaders will realize that their future is in their hands, not in the hands of our brave men and women who proudly wear America’s uniform,” said Carl Levin.

But General Petraeus offered a different view.

“A premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences,” he said.

That assessment is shared by the top Republican on the committee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is seeking his party’s nomination for president.

“We can be sure however that if the United States Congress succeeds in legislating a date for withdrawal and thus surrender, then we will fail for certain,” said Senator McCain. “Make no mistake, consequences of American defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long lasting.”

General Petraeus says violence has decreased in Iraq since an added 30,000 U.S. troops were deployed earlier this year. He says those additional troops could be home by the middle of next year, but said the rest of the 130,000 troops should remain.

President Bush has argued that the United States is fighting a necessary war in Iraq, saying America is fighting terrorists there so it doesn’t have to fight them at home.

But General Petraeus said he is not sure whether the war is crucial to U.S. security in an exchange with Senator John Warner of Virginia, a respected Republican who recently endorsed the idea of setting a timetable to begin a U.S. troop withdrawal.

PETRAEUS: “I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.”

WARNER: “Does that make America safer?”

PETRAEUS: “Sir, I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted it out in mind.”

Later, Petraeus said the United States has substantial national interests in Iraq - from seeing that the country is stable and secure and not an al-Qaida sanctuary, to making sure it is not in the grip of an Iranian-supported Shi’a militia.

For his part, Ambassador Crocker says although the Iraqi government has not met most of the political, economic and military goals it set, it has made some progress. He urged congressional critics to be patient:

“I do believe Iraq’s leaders have the will to tackle the country’s pressing problems although it will take longer than we originally anticipated because of the environment and the gravity of the issues before them,” he said.

President Bush, who met with congressional leaders at the White House to discuss Iraq Tuesday, is expected to endorse the recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in an address to the nation later this week.

By Dan Robinson
Capitol Hill
11 September 2007

Robinson report - Download (mp3) 3.64MB
Listen to Robinson report
Watch R. Raffaele’s report / Windows Broadband - download
Watch R. Raffaele’s report / Windows Broadband
Watch R. Raffaele’s report / Windows Dialup - download
Watch R. Raffaele’s report / Windows Dialup

General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, faced tough questions Monday while testifying before two congressional committees about what he says has been significant progress against al-Qaida and extremist groups in Iraq. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports, Petraeus told lawmakers he would reduce U.S. forces by the middle of next year to pre-military surge levels, while he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, cautioned against any rapid U.S. departure.

Republicans and Democrats took turns questioning Petraeus about the effectiveness of the military surge ordered by President Bush last January and which began in earnest this past June.

From majority Democrats, including the two committee chairmen, he faced skeptical questions about the Iraqi government’s ability to act on political reconciliation and other issues.

Armed Services chairman Ike Skelton and Foreign Affairs chairman Tom Lantos:

SKELTON: “The witnesses must tell us why we should continue sending our young men and women to fight and die if the Iraqis won’t make the tough sacrifices leading to reconciliation.”

LANTOS: “We cannot take any of this administration’s assertions on Iraq at face value any more and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility.”

Petraeus said objectives of the surge, which brought U.S. forces in Iraq to about 168,000, are in large measure being met with substantial although uneven progress by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a written statement, called continuation of the military surge unacceptable and asked for “a much more aggressive timetable than the one outlined” by General Petraeus.”

Petraeus pointed to Al-Anbar province, where local leaders and officials turned against al-Qaida, as a primary example of progress.

“A year ago the province was assessed as lost politically,” said General Petraeus. “Today it is a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose al-Qaida, and reject its Taliban-like ideology.”

He also said al-Qaida in Iraq and its affiliates suffered setbacks. Shia militia and Iranian-supported extremist groups, he said, were disrupted and sectarian violence in Baghdad and other areas is down.

Responding to suggestions by Democrats and anti-war critics that his report was simply an expression of President Bush’s position, Petraeus said it had been cleared with neither the White House nor the Pentagon, and had the support of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Congressman Duncan Hunter was among Republicans accusing Democrats of trying to discredit Petraeus for partisan political reasons.

“The idea that we have spent the last week prepping the battlefield by attacking the credibility of the messenger [Petraeus] is something that I think goes against the great tradition of this House,” said Congressman Hunter.

While Petraeus envisions withdrawing five military brigades from Iraq by July of 2008, beginning with a Marine brigade this month, he not be drawn into speculation about further reductions, and warned against any precipitous withdrawal.

“Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous,” he said. “The events of the past six months underscore that point.”

U.S. Ambassador Crocker expressed his frustration with the lack of political progress by Iraq’s government. However, he pointed to what he sees as signs Iraqis have the will to overcome sectarian differences.

“Leaders from all communities openly acknowledge that a focus on sectarian gains has led to poor governments and served Iraqis badly, and many claim to be ready to make the sacrifices that will be needed to put government performance ahead of sectarian and ethnic concerns,” said Ambassador Crocker.

Crocker also warned against a premature U.S. withdrawal, asserting this would only help Iran, and benefit al-Qaida in Iraq.

Monday’s public hearing was marked by interruptions from protesters shouting “Out of Iraq” and other slogans. Capitol police reported four arrests, including anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus appear Tuesday before two Senate panels. The White House is due to send Congress a separate report on Iraq by September 15.

By Dan Robinson
Washington
10 September 2007

The U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has told a joint congressional hearing that he believes U.S. forces could be reduced by next year to pre-military surge levels. As VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, General Petraeus, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, cautioned that any rapid U.S. departure would bring deterioration in the situation and hand the initiative back to al-Qaida in Iraq and other groups.

General Petraeus told the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that military objectives of the U.S. troop surge are in large measure being met.

He used charts to demonstrate what he called substantial progress by U.S. and Iraqi forces, with the overall number of security incidents declining in eight of the past 12 weeks.

While describing progress as uneven across the country, Petraeus pointed to signs that progress in al-Anbar province, cited by President Bush as the clearest example of the effectiveness of the military surge, has spread to other areas. “In what may be the most significant development of the past eight months, the tribal rejection of al-Qaida that started in Anbar province and helped produce such significant change there, has now spread to a number of other locations as well,” he said.

Petraeus pointed to reductions in civilian and sectarian deaths in Baghdad and across Iraq by 45 and 55 percent respectively and 80 percent in Baghdad since December 2006, adding that losses are still too high.

He said coalition and Iraqi forces dealt significant blows to al-Qaida in Iraq and affiliates, removing a number of their sanctuaries, and disrupted Shia militia and Iranian-supported extremist groups.

General Petraeus envisions being able to remove without replacement military brigades by July of 2008, beginning with a Marine brigade later this month and followed by another in December and four next year. Current force levels are about 168,000.

However, he said it won’t be until March of next year that he would develop estimates for future force level reductions below the pre-surge figure of about 130,000, and warned against any precipitous U.S. withdrawal. “Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous. The events of the past six months underscore that point,” he said.

Lawmakers reiterated their support for General Petraeus. However, Democratic committee chairmen said his efforts have been hampered by the failure of Iraqi government leaders to move toward political reconciliation. “The witnesses must tell us why we should continue sending our young men and women to fight and die if the Iraqis won’t make the tough sacrifices leading to reconciliation,” said Armed Services chairman Ike Skelton.

General Petraeus said his reports were not cleared or submitted in advance to the White House or the Pentagon, in response to suggestions by anti-war critics and many Democratic lawmakers that his report amounted to little more than an expression of President Bush’s position.

House Foreign Affairs chairman Tom Lantos described the appearance as an effort to restore credibility to what he called President Bush’s failed policies. “We cannot take any of this administration’s assertions on Iraq at face value any more and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility,” he said.

Delivering what he called a sober assessment, U.S. Ambassador Crocker pointed to what he sees as signs Iraqis have the will to overcome sectarian differences. “Leaders from all communities openly acknowledge that a focus on sectarian gains has led to poor governments and served Iraqis badly, and many claim to be ready to make the sacrifices that will be needed to put government performance ahead of sectarian and ethnic concerns,” he said.

Echoing General Petraeus, Crocker warned of the consequences of any premature U.S. withdrawal, asserting that Iran would benefit and al-Qaida could re-establish itself, and noting that suicide bombers continue to cross into Iraq from Syria.

Monday’s public hearing was marked by interruptions as protesters shouted “Out of Iraq” during testimony, ignoring warnings from the committee chairman. Capitol police reported four arrests, including the anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Crocker and Petraeus will repeat their testimony on Tuesday before two Senate panels.

By Mona Ghuneim
New York
11 September 2007

Ghuneim report (mp3) - Download 747k audio clip
Listen to Ghuneim report (mp3) audio clip

The United States marked the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States with ceremonies, tributes and silence all over the country. From VOA’s New York Bureau, Mona Ghuneim reports.

Six years after the attacks that changed the Manhattan skyline forever, New Yorkers gathered Tuesday at a park near the former site of the World Trade Center to observe the anniversary.

As in years past, the New York ceremony included four moments of silence - each one in memory of the times the twin towers were hit and then fell. As in previous ceremonies, the names of more than 2,700 people who died when the towers collapsed were read out loud. Only this year, for the first time, firefighters and rescue workers who responded to the attacks and recovery efforts read the names.

“Alok Agarwal, Mukul Kumar Agarwala, and my family member - Peggy Jezycki Alario, and my partner and friend - paramedic Lieutenant Ricardo J. Quinn,” read one.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg presided over the event. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also made brief remarks, despite opposition from many firefighters and victims’ families who say Giuliani is using 9/11 as a way to further his presidential campaign. But the former mayor said he was chief of the city that day and has appeared at the ceremony every year.

Mayor Bloomberg said 9/11 was “the day that tore across our history and our hearts.”

“We come together again as New Yorkers and as Americans to share a loss that can’t be measured and to remember the names of those who can’t be replaced,” he said.

Family members of the victims descended to Ground Zero to lay flowers and pay their respects. Because of construction, this year’s commemoration could not be held at Ground Zero itself. Family members who threatened to boycott the ceremony finally won a struggle with the city to be allowed access to the site.

Benito Colon’s wife died in the South Tower that day. He paid tribute to her and read a message from their daughters.

“Time passes but the memories of you, full of love, will be our best guide,” said Colon. “We love you, mommy.”

At the White House, President Bush and his wife observed a moment of silence. The president was joined by Vice President Dick Cheney, cabinet members and the White House staff.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates presided over a small ceremony at the Pentagon. He said that acts of terrorism will not be tolerated.

“The enemies of America, the enemies of our values and our liberty, will never again rest easy for we will hunt them down relentlessly and without reservation,” said Gates.

A memorial at the Pennsylvania field where one of the hijacked planes crashed, killing the 40 passengers and crew on board, was also held.

By VOA News
11 September 2007

The United States Tuesday is marking the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with somber ceremonies.

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush, are joined by Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, as they take part in a moment of silence, marking the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, 11 Sep 2007
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush, are joined by Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, as they take part in a moment of silence, marking the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, 11 Sep 2007
President Bush paused for a moment of silence at the White House at 8:46 am EDT to mark the time six years ago when the first hijacked airplane hit the World Trade Center in New York City.

In New York, rescue workers and families of the victims are reading out the names of the more than 2,750 people killed after two hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the two 110-story buildings collapsed.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke at a ceremony at the Pentagon, where 184 people died after hijackers crashed a plane into the building six years ago. In Pennsylvania, mourners are remembering the 40 people who died after passengers overtook hijackers and the plane went down in a field.

The key planner of the attacks, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, has released a videotape eulogizing one of the 19 suicide hijackers.

Bin Laden is shown in a still image on the video urging sympathizers to join what he called the “caravan” of martyrs as he praises hijacker Walid al-Shehri, who took part in the World Trade Center attack.

After bin Laden speaks, there is a video of al-Shehri condemning the United States.

The new message comes days after bin Laden appeared in his first video in nearly three years. In it, he urges Americans to abandon their democratic system of government and embrace Islam.

Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are believed to be hiding in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In a world of sound bites, pay for play politics and something more than a cottage industry, built by those who earn their living commercializing public issues, who is giving General Petraeus a fair shake? This post focuses on three news reports. One addresses the forthcoming Petraeus report largely based on comments from first term Democratic Congressman from the 2nd District of Connecticut and Senator Joe Lieberman who needs no introduction. The second report is about MoveOn.org’s over the top comments about General Petraeus and the third is commentary from Michael Yon.

“It’s hard to envision Gen. Petraeus’ approach changing anything politically in Iraq,” said Courtney, D-2nd District, who will have a prime seat - and chance to ask questions - when the general and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker present their long-awaited war status report to two House committees today.

The above response from Courtney might cause one to ask what he means by ‘politically in Iraq’? Is he suggesting the Petraeus report from the general and the Ambassador were intended to alter the sectarian politics in Iraq? Or is he saying US politics ABOUT Iraq will not likely change due to this report? Since those opposing victory in Iraq chose to preempt the report through rhetorical campaigns with no intention of evaluating the report objectively, it is a safe bet Courtney’s comment is about US politics.

Since Senator Lieberman won re-election as an Independent and is not viewed in a positive light by Democrats, his comments may be a reasonable analysis of the situation but will be ignored by those opposing victory in Iraq. The tendency to prosecute a war with minimal control by the military and continuous meddling by civilian authority as well as the left stance that does little more than misuse free speech rights to aid the enemy, the foregone conclusion is no change or honest reassessment of conditions in Iraq. Even if complete and total victory was possible by tomorrow morning with overwhelming and convincing evidence, the liberal sentiment in this country would not support the troops, mission or effort to reconcile the conflict, both in war and politics.

The next reference focuses on MoveOn.org and their over the top reputation that has reached a new level of depravity. All that needs to be addressed is the short, simple condemnation of an organization that represents individuals incapable of self-restraint in executing their agenda. Referring to General Petraeus as a traitor is beyond words strong enough to describe their offense. There is no excuse for that behavior.

The commentary at the following link does a fine job on this topic

MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor
Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM

Tomorrow–as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress–the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: “General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.”

Let’s be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has ‘betrayed’ his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his ‘on the ground’ experience does not align with MoveOn.org’s political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America’s military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

Not surprisingly, the approach that should be adopted by everyone about the coming Petraeus report is offered by this commentary by Michael Yon.

Don’t Ask Me What I Think about the Petraeus Report
Ask the battalion commanders.
By Michael Yon

Weeks ago, as the deadline for General David Petraeus’s progress report on the war loomed, journalists were already asking me what I thought of it. Then, as now, I do not know what to think of the report since it is not yet published. Even this coming week, after listening to the general’s testimony before Congress, I will have to read the report and transcripts numerous times, sleep on the information, and reflect on it in light of my own observations of the situation in Iraq. The outcome of the war in Iraq, and to some extent the greater War on Terror, will largely depend upon our decisions today. The outcome is too important for quick words. Many will try to be the first to report on the report, and their reports likely will be the most unreliable.

There is no telling how long it will take this country to understand how to respond to issues like the Iraq war. There is a better way to perform civic duties than the way we have for several decades. It would be helpful if we could relocate that part of our history.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Scott Stearns
White House
28 August 2007

Stearns report (mp3) - download 630K audio clip
Listen to Stearns report (mp3) audio clip

President Bush says Iran must stop arming militants who are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports, Mr. Bush’s speech to a veterans group is part of a White House effort to restore public support for the war in Iraq.

President Bush told a meeting of the American Legion, America’s largest veterans’ group, that winning the war in Iraq is vital to America’s long-term security and the future of the Middle East.

He says extremists in the region are inspired by two strains of violent Islamic radicalism that are closing in on Iraq in an effort to bring down its young democracy.

The president says Sunni extremism, embodied by al-Qaida and its allies, is responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington as well as violence against fellow Muslims in Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Bush says Shia extremism is embodied by Iran, which he says threatens the security of nations everywhere by actively pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

He told the military veterans that Iran is funding Hezbollah militants and is arming Iraqi extremists to attack U.S. troops.

“Some say Iran’s leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing,” Mr. Bush said. “Others say Iran’s leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions, and until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.”

Mr. Bush says he has authorized U.S. military commanders in Iraq to confront what he calls “Tehran’s murderous activities.”

A majority of Americans now believe the war in Iraq is a mistake. A public-opinion poll by CBS News this month says more than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the war in Iraq.

White House officials say the speech, along with last week’s appearance before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, is meant to set the broader context for the Iraq conflict before next month’s presidential report to Congress on the impact of the January decision to send more troops to Iraq.

While the president says he will make no decisions on troop levels until after the September 15th report to Congress, he made clear to the American Legion that withdrawing before the war is won would be a mistake.

“We have seen what these enemies will do when American forces are actively engaged in Iraq,” Mr. Bush said. “And we can envision what they would do if they were emboldened by American forces in retreat.”

The president says the challenge in Iraq is that either the forces of extremism advance their interests or the forces of freedom succeed and advance America’s interests. He says the most important way to counter the ambitions of al-Qaida and Iran is to win the fight in Iraq.