Quote Of The Year?

"I think the 'surge' is working."
-- Rep. John Murtha

Here's the story, from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

He said Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional."

Mr. Murtha's four day-trip took him to a Thanksgiving dinner with troops in Kuwait last Thursday, and he then made stops in Iraq, Turkey and Belgium.

The word "speechless" would come to mind, except that the word "but" keeps blocking it out.

Murtha may be wrong but he's not dumb. He knows he has to acknowledge success that's this obvious, but he's wiley enough to cage his phrase within the context of the Congressionally-approved milestones so he can continue to fight the war.

The left lobe of the blogosphere is silent on Murtha's statement, as can be expected. Among the many blog links to the story on memeorandum, only Huffpost represents the Left, writing of the briefing, but fails to mention his assessment on the surge. Rather, the post describes what it calls a set-up for Dem capitulation on Iraq:

And soon enough, the Democratic bluff will be called. In response, they will posture, bluster and then - you can bet on it-- they will fold. For a harbinger of this dreary scenario, you need look no further than the briefing held Thursday by the powerful Democratic chief of the House subcommittee on military spending, Pennsylvania Rep. Jack Murtha. "Congress wants to come up with an agreement," he said. "Leadership may be willing to compromise" on the time line for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

May be willing to compromise? Really? Insert your laugh track right here, please.

Compromising and capitulating are the only things the Democrats have been doing on this issue. Murtha's statement implies that some sort of deal can be reached with the Republicans in which a somewhat extended troop withdrawal timetable will be agreed upon. During his press conference, Murtha suggested that might be something like a two year calendar.

Interesting, isn't it, that the author, Marc Cooper, did not feel compelled to mention to his readers Murtha's assessment of the war's progress? The truth? You can't take the truth. Or something like that.

Don't Cross Jack

Murtha that is. Jack Bauer is merely a fiction, while Jack Murtha is larger-than-life real. Unfortunately.

The blustering Dem -- Pelosi's pick for her go-to guy, as you recall -- is a bully whose rule of the playground is getting tiresome for everyone. I'd conclude that he's become an embarrassment to the Donkey Party, but I just don't know. Maybe they really like this guy as their representative.

The most recent incident, described in a WSJ editorial today, involved Murtha's cuffing of a couple Congressmen around the earmarks. (The Dems were going to reform earmarks, if you recall their 2006 campaign rhetoric.)

During negotiations over an intelligence bill last week, Mr. Murtha took exception to two colleagues who challenged an earmark for his district, so he let them know who's their daddy.

The episode has backfired, however, as Republicans yesterday introduced a House resolution to reprimand Mr. Murtha for his bullying. Under an ethics rule passed by Democrats this year, House members are banned from blocking earmarks based on the way a Member votes. But what do they do now that one of their own is caught doing a Tom DeLay imitation?

The altercation went down as Mr. Murtha tried to adorn an intelligence bill with $23 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center in the narcotics hotbed of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Michigan Republican Mike Rogers questioned the earmark for a project that has been tagged even by the mainstream press as a "boondoggle" and the House Government Reform Committee called an "expensive and duplicative" use of scarce resources.

But when Mr. Rogers proposed using that $23 million for other intelligence work, Mr. Murtha blew a gasket. "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills," Mr. Murtha told him, "because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Mr. Murtha administered a similar lashing to Republican Todd Tiahrt for his objection to the same $23 million. Cameras rolled as a crimson Mr. Murtha barreled up to Mr. Tiahrt to express his displeasure on the House floor, finger wagging.

What is it, NanPo? Is your team for earmark reform or not? You've told us Murtha's your guy, that he speaks for you, so what's the deal? Were the Dems just saying whatever it took to get elected or something?

Remember, folks, as you watch Murtha self-destruct before our eyes that this man, more than anyone else, is the architect of the Dems' attack on the war. Before Jack, they stewed. After Jack -- he's a Marine vet, did you know? -- they finally had a uniform to hide behind and became loud and shrill in their retraction of every pro-war vote and anti-Saddam statement they had made when it was chic to do so.

Was it a smart move? I don't know. Ask Jack. But ask him behind his back; it's dangerous challenging him to his face.

Art: United Conservatives

What Would Tip Do?

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi got so mad at Dick Cheney, she called the Prez to give him a piece of her mind.

I had felt nervous about my post yesterday questioning Hillary's recent action as overly female, but that nervousness was wiped away by this reassuring -- and very humorous -- news. Hillary getting her staff to melt down for her over David Geffen's honest statement about the Clintons was typically Clintonesque, typical of a political hack ... and it reflected certain womanly characteristics that men in politics pretty much don't share. (Well, maybe Dan Foley does.)

As I read of our Dem leader's impulsive and pointless phone call, I thought of Tip O'Neill, the crusty Bostonian Dem House leader from 1977-1987. Would Tip have grabbed the phone to tell Reagan a piece of his mind? Doubtful. He would have poured himself a Scotch, sworn a blue streak, and gotten on with business.

Not NanPo.

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said. (Fox)

On the Geffen matter, while Hil was saying she was running a positive campaign, whe was directing her staff to be anything but. On this, NanPo criticized the Prez for not welcoming debate because of his Veep's statement -- then behaved like someone who would allow no debate whatsoever.

Cheney's statement was pointed but hardly what Pelosi characterized it to be:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

What about that is beneath debate? What about it debases the men and women in the military? What about it questions the patriotism of NanPo and her senile lapdog? And where was NanPo's answer? Non-existent! Because it's "beneath debate!" Says who? We really want to hear why the Dem plan doesn't build up al Qaeda.

Tip would have sucked Cheney's comment in with a deep draw of cigar smoke, washed it down with a barley beverage, and colorfully pointed out errors and shortfalls in Cheney's statements, character and politics. It would have been memorable and probably strategic.

What did Nancy get? Hung out to dry by the President's Chief of Staff. The First Female Speaker of the House didn't even know that you don't herald a call to the President unless you're sure he's in.

The two most powerful women in American politics are doing nothing to promote women in politics by this kind of behavior.

Why Are We Not Done With Dionne?

E.J. Dionne gets under my skin because he's a man with little common sense who has been given a massive soapbox to say what he will. The WaPo columnist had this to say on Real Clear Politics this a.m.:

The challenge to critics of the war is to make the debate about Bush, not themselves, and to make clear that the president has rebuffed all efforts to pursue a bipartisan path out of Iraq, beginning with his rejection of the core recommendations of the Iraq Study Group headed by James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton.

What a breakthrough! Make the war about Bush! Why hadn't the Left thought of that before? Brilliant!

Dionne is hanging out with former DC mayors if he thinks there's a crack-smoke-thin whiff of bipartisanship in the Dem party. Hasn't been since Florida in 2000. Their definition of bipartisanship is "My way or the highway, Bub."

If there were bipartisan leadership in the Dems, there wouldn't have been a Resolution to Show No Resolve. There might have been a non-binding resolution saying timelines and performance milestones need to be imposed on the Baghdad government, but not a no confidence resolution like the House and Senate bills.

And Dionne's reference to the Baker-Hamilton report, which has been shown to be deeply, mortally flawed, is about as compellling as a third-rate hack spinning for a losing cause. Waving that report under our noses may influence some, but most of us just smell a stink.

Of Jack Murtha's proposed end-around -- support the troops by making it impossible for them to fight by enforcing "term limits" on their action in Iraq -- Dionne says:

The Murtha measure would at least force a much-needed debate on the damage this war has done to our armed forces and the extraordinary burdens being borne by the brave minority of Americans who serve. It would also sidestep the political damage of doing anything that could be construed by Bush's supporters as "failing to support our troops.''

Granted, Dionne goes on to say Murtha's approach is doomed, but does he think we voters would actually buy Murtha's approach as anything but a slap in the face of the soldiers? We're too smart by far. We know that Murtha's measure isn't based on concern for the troops or their families -- if he's even talked to them, he knows the majority are there for the long haul -- it's just political sidestepping and cowardness.

I could go on, but I have to be 50 miles from here in an hour, so I'll just leave with this: Dionne may be a fool, but he's a fool to millions. Throughout Iraq are U.S. soldiers who are nobody's fools, certainly not his, and they would like to be able to get on with their mission without the knowledge that they are fighting to protect the liberties of liberals with oversized influence and undersized appreciation.

Dems Ignore Heroes, Vote Egos

All but two House Dems joined with 17 cowardly Republicans and denied our troops support, passing the Resolution to Show No Resolve this afternoon on a - vote.

The closing GOP speaker was Sam Johnson of Texas, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, shown here embracing his wife Shirley when he finally returned stateside on Feb. 17, 1973 -- 34 years ago tomorrow. Johnson said:

"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already. We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them."

He snapped off a salute as he completed his remarks, and received an ovation from all there, even the hypocrites who, when the applause died down, voted not to stick by our troops. The measure says Congress "will support the troops" but it means nothing, as Pelosi and Murtha conspire to cut the funds the troops need to achieve their mission.

Even as the surge achieves results -- insurgents killed, arrested and fleeing, and calmer streets in Iraq -- Murtha gleefully said the vote "stops the surge for all intents and purposes, because .. they cannot sustain the deployment."

Do you need any more convincing that to Pelosi, Murtha and thier ilk, "victory" means "shame for America?"

Safe War Or No War, Says The Dems

Already moving past its Resolution to Show No Resolve, the House is getting on with the attack on the war, promising next to take up funding.

Read what the Dem leaders are saying, and it's evident where they're coming from: Fear of unpleasantness, and distrust of the military. First Peacenik Pelosi:

In a letter to the president on Wednesday, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "thousands of the new troops" being sent into Iraq "will apparently not have the armor and equipment they need to perform the mission and reduce the likelihood of casualties."

Now her pet bulldog, Jack Murtha:

Murtha, a war veteran who advocates pulling troops out of Iraq, has said he wants to forbid the Pentagon from sending additional troops "unless they have adequate training and unless they have adequate equipment."

Murtha, D-Pa., said he believes the Army may have no units that can meet those standards, meaning Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq would be checked. Congress also could try to slow the deployment of additional troops by curtailing the Pentagon's practice of extending the duty tours of personnel who have reached the end of their scheduled time in the war zone. (source)

What is adequate armor and equipment? Disposing of the latter first, we have the best equipment of any military on earth and plenty of it, so Pelosi is fabricating a crisis out of thin air. Our troops have the stuff; she just lacks the stuffing to handle wartime leadership.

As for armor, it's a tired argument dating back to the earliest days of the war. Now the vests are there, the off-base vehicles are armed. That Iran has developed a new projectile that is capable of taking down an insanely armed Abrahms tank is not evidence that we are unarmed; it is merely evidence that the field of battle has gotten more dangerous because of direct involvement of Iran.

The desire to stop Iran's powerful new bombs with better armament is typical dove-think. They're all for war as long as no blood is spilled. If the enemy is ingenious and keeps finding new ways to kill us, then either we're at fault for not having enough armor, or for fighting a war in the first place. Of course, it's Iran and its Shia allies in Iraq who are at fault and the solution is not to whine about our armor but to disrupt their operations.

Murtha's comment, as usual, is particularly dispicable. He is the personification of everything that ticks me off about the old fighters who are getting in the way of the new fight. He needs no proof that the Pentagon is, as he alleges, sending under-armed, under-trained troops in. It's poppycock of course; just fodder for the anti-war left.

He wants the troops to not suffer longer deployments. Did he ask them? Did he consider the effect on our fighting if we treat combat duty as calendar-driven instead of need-driven? Did he ask consider that the enemy doesn't think in terms of tours of duty, but in terms of an eternal battle?

The Dem leadership might as well hang banners across their chests saying, "I'm what 'No Will' is all about." It's easier to lead a nation into defeat than it is to lead a nation into victory, and Pelosi, Murtha and their crew are, as usual, taking the easy route.

Art: Blue Crab Blvd.