A recent press release from United States Central Command tells a bit of a different story on the situation in parts of Iraq than those we read in the newspapers daily.

Surge progress may lead to troop reductions in northern Iraq, general says

BAGHDAD — Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing “definitive progress” and the number of forces serving in Iraq’s Multi-National Division-North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said.

A reduction of U.S. forces under the general’s command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference.

Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division-North and the U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern Iraq, including the city of Baqubah — site of the ongoing Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

He said he has given U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a plan indicating a possible reduction of force in Multi-National Division-North during 2008.

Mixon said the current debate over troop withdrawal should revolve around reaching a strategic “end state.”

“It seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world, and then determine how we can reach that end state, and how much time that will take,” he said. “To me, that seems to be the most important thing, because there will be consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq.”

“It cannot be a strategy based on, ‘Well, we need to leave,’” he added. “That’s not a strategy, that’s a withdrawal.”

More here.

I find it most interesting that Congress is pushing for these timelines when they certainly know the information dispatched from those with boots on the ground. Could it be they wish to take credit for an “early withdrawal” when they know very well what the game plan is?

I say that is very possible, however, they should be careful as the military will not and cannot plan a war around the whims of those on either side of the aisle in Congress. They have an option to defund this war they do not have the right however, to interfere in the planning and execution of the war. Oversight is one thing, strategic planning another entirely.

Also, the selective “cherry picking” of the press when it comes to statements made by those in command has been shown again.

(more…)

According to this piece at Patterico’s Pontifications
Johnny Sutton may be answering some tough questions today.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing to examine the prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean. Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas whose office prosecuted the Ramos/Compean case, is scheduled to testify at the hearing.

I hope Mr. Sutton’s testimony at this hearing helps answer my questions and concerns about the Ramos/Compean trial and verdict. In an effort to clarify my questions and concerns and to facilitate a better understanding of the testimony tendered to the Committee, this post will compare the Ramos/Compean trial transcript with the U.S. Attorney’s most recent press release.

If you are unfamiliar with the Ramos/Compean case or need a refresher on the facts, this February 2007 article by the AP’s Pauline Arrillaga (Washington Post link) contains a concise summary.

The linked post has terrific information on the case itself and should you wish to read further there is more here.

Update: Here is the Official Hearing Notice/Witness list as provided by the Judiciary Committee.

If this isn’t political gamesmanship I don’t know what is.

Following is the Democrat memo highlights or lowlights, depending on how you see them, for the big filibuster that will take place tonight. And CNN is already cooperating by talking about and showing the rollaway beds.

The Democratic memo includes this just-add-water message template for Democratic senators to propagate: “President Bush has proven beyond any doubt that he won’t listen to the Congress or the American people unless he is forced to. While some Senate Republicans might not want to change course in Iraq, it does not gives them the right to block an up or down vote on legislation supported by a majority of the Congress and the American people.”

The memo says Senate Democrats are coordinating with their House counterparts to produce an echo effect during floor speeches in the other chamber. Under a section called, “Amplifying Our Message to Force a Change Of Course in Iraq,” the memo gives this overview:

–“Senate Democrats will tape TV feeds and actualities back to their home states.”

–“Outside groups will hold a ‘call to action’ event Tuesday night to call on Republicans to end their Iraq filibuster.”

–“Iraq veterans will make visits to Senate offices asking Republican Senators to allow an up or down vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment.”

–“Center for American Progress will live-blog the all night session.”

–“Senate Democrats will conduct interviews on national cable and radio.”

–“The Steering and Outreach Committee will release a video of Iraq veterans and military families calling for a change of course in Iraq.”

The Republicans have their talking points too.

A companion memo for Senate Republicans accuses Democrats of pulling a “stunt” – a word you can count on hearing as a mantra from the GOP. Watch to see if White House Press Secretary Tony Snow uses it.

…

The memo from the Senate Republican Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), calls attention to the fact that the all-night session coincides with evening rallies sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn.org, which is giving supporters instructions on how to “Host a Counter-Filibuster to End the War.”

Is this what our Congress has come to? Staging events for the news and for Moveon.org? Too cute by half.

The fact of the matter is Sen. Reid could take a vote on this issue anytime today if he wanted to and the numbers will be no different from the ones taken tomorrow.

It’s a campaign publicity stunt and we’ll see how many Americans notice and even care.

He is another casualty in the political war in Washington D.C..

Veterans Affairs chief Jim Nicholson, who was forced to defend his agency’s performance after revelations of shoddy health care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, announced Tuesday he is resigning to return to the private sector.

Nicholson has been head of the VA since February, 2005. Before that, he was U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and chairman of the Republican National Committee.

As chief, Nicholson oversaw a vast network of 1,400 hospitals and clinics, which provide supplemental care and rehabilitation to 5.8 million veterans.

He is the latest in a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final years of President Bush’s administration.

Earlier this year, the VA was embarrassed by revelations of poor health care at Walter Reed for veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nicholson was named by President Bush to lead an interagency task force of seven Cabinet secretaries to determine what could be done immediately to improve veterans’ care.

Nicholson defended the Veterans Administration, but acknowledged there is room for improvement.

“When you’re seeing over 1 million patients a week, you have to be very good, and if there is any one patient who doesn’t get the care that they deserve, that’s unacceptable,” Nicholson said in March. “The American people can feel very good about the health care system that their VA is providing to veterans, but if there is a case where a veteran gets lost in the system, or suffers anxiety or their family does as a result of something we’re not doing, that is unacceptable.”

Nicholson just this week pledged to add mental health services at more than 100 VA medical centers. In addition, the VA is adding new VA-run Vet Centers, hiring more suicide prevention coordinators and hosting state mental health conferences to facilitate collaboration of veterans services.

Nicholson, a decorated Vietnam veteran who retired as a colonel in the Army Reserve, said he would leave by Oct. 1.

Story

How do you see this? Is it good or bad for Hillary?

Speaks for itself.

The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his “surge” strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush’s decision.

Story

Does this mean it’s not going to be an exciting election unless another Ronald Reagan appears?

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year’s first three months.

“Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine,” David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. “The Republicans don’t have that; particularly among the conservatives there’s a real split. They just don’t see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable.”

Story

Should he be judged as he judges others.

In the fall of 1998, David Vitter felt compelled to weigh in on the national debate over the possible impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Vitter was not yet a member of Congress; he was a Republican state representative. And in an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment “is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment.” Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.
Vitter, a graduate of Harvard University and Tulane law school and a Rhodes scholar, was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton’s impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is “not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern,” he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:

Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care — because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.

The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong — moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

In considering impeachment, Vitter asserted, Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms. Decrying the law professors’ failure to see this, Vitter observed, “Is that the level of moral relatively [sic] and vacuousness we have come to?” If no “meaningful action” were to be taken against Clinton, Vitter wrote, “his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture.”
Strong words. Now that Vitter, who entered the House of Representatives in 1999 after winning a special election to fill the seat of Representative Bob Livingston (who resigned after being caught in an adultery scandal) and who was elected senator in 2004, has admitted he placed a phone call to the so-called DC Madam, his constituents can only wonder if he will hold himself to the same standards he sought to apply to Bill Clinton.
Perhaps Vitter ought to revisit the issue of whether the absence of moral fitness is a firing offense for a public official.

Story

Speaks for itself.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards may not want to participate in debates sponsored by FOX News, but they like taking cash from officials of the company considered an arm of the conservative movement by many liberal Democrats.

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: “We believe there’s just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they’re objective.”

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

“We’re going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We’ve previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more “appropriate venue.”

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.

Story

Acts like an ex-wife.

When you make a boo-boo on a comment you can have up to five minutes to go in and edit your comment. You will notice the option under your comment.

I thought this was working all along until I was away and wasn’t logged in on that computer and then I saw it was not active.

Hope you like it.

Thanks to Kim from Musing Minds and Schratwieser Consulting for fixing this.

When I was a girl I remember hearing of Senate filibusters that lasted days while senators were required to stay all night and sleep on roll-away cots.

Well Sen. Harry Reid must remember those days too, as he plans to keep the Senators awake most of Tuesday night to keep forcing votes on a pull-out from Iraq.

The Senate this week will pull its first all-night debate on the Iraq war in advance of a vote on whether to bring home combat troops by next spring, Democrats said Monday.
The rare, round-the-clock session Tuesday night through Wednesday morning is intended to bait Republicans into an exhaustive debate on the politically unpopular war, as well as punish GOP members for routinely blocking anti-war legislation.

“How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had?” said Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Democrats are trying to ratchet up pressure on Republicans who have grown uneasy with the lack of progress and begun questioning President Bush’s military strategy.

Republicans shrugged off the planned marathon debate as political theater. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans “welcome further debate” but that there was no reason why the Senate couldn’t vote sooner.

Democrats want to pass legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order combat troops to begin leaving in 120 days and complete the pullout by April 30. The legislation would allow some troops to remain behind to conduct counterterrorism, protect U.S. assets and train the Iraqis.

Republicans have insisted it take 60 votes to pass—a de facto filibuster threat because it takes as many votes to cut off debate under Senate rules.

With only three Republicans—Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon—having promised to back the measure, it’s expected to fail.

Frustrated by the minority’s ability to block its anti-war proposals, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said he planned an endless night of votes and live quorum calls to force members to the floor in advance of the Wednesday morning vote.

“We’re not going to let everybody go home and have a good night’s rest,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters.

Republicans shrugged off the endless session as political theater.

It’s a good start, but I’d like to see a real filibuster where no one goes home until a deal is made. I can stay up all night one night standing on my head.

Just as in the last Congress the Democrats tied up all controversial legislation and judicial appointments with filibusters, the Republicans are using the only real tool the minority has in the Senate.

Just as the Republicans took the blame for being a “do-nothing” Congress due in part to the Democratic filibusters, the Democrats will take the blame this time in part due to the Republican filibusters.

The people hold the leader responsible for running a tight ship and most don’t understand why legislation can’t get passed.

ABCs Good Morning America program featured a John Edwards Town Hall meeting on Monday morning.

That’s not the story and there really isn’t a story here, but a question.

Notice the man behind Mr. Edwards’ left shoulder.

Where did the sleeping man go?

It seems that maybe ABC removed the sleeping man from view as soon as they could.

Photos courtesy of News Busters

We had a very full week-end with our son, daughter in law and two wonderful grandchildren in Texas. The weather didn’t get unbearably hot and humid until Sunday and when we left Monday it was supposed to get to 104. At 8 AM CDT it already felt as though it were 90 degrees out there.

No matter what airport you visit you will see our troops in combat fatigues, either on their way home for R&R or on their way back to their station in the Mid-East.

They are quiet, polite and bother no one, seeming to just be enjoying the moment of the peace and relative quiet of an airport where the air is cool and refreshing.

Unless you speak to them they don’t speak to you, but if you speak to them they are the most pleasant and polite men and women you would ever want to meet, and it makes you proud to know they are your fellow countrymen and women.

I noticed this time the rank insignia is on their chests at what appears to be over their hearts. I would imagine this is so an enemy combatant wouldn’t be able to tell if he had a private or a general in his sights while in battle since our guys would have armor on them to cover the insignia.

When you shake their hands and give them a “thank you for serving” comment they become very grateful and start smiling. Someone recognizes and cares about what they are doing, and you can tell how much that simple act of kindness means to them.

I asked the hotel for plenty of matches because, as I told them, if I see a soldier who needs matches I’m going to give him or her a complete book and not just a match.

Because my husband served during the Viet Nam war, although he was stationed in Thailand instead of ‘Nam, I know how our Viet Nam vets were treated when they came home, and I don’t want these fine young men and women to get the same treatment, so I go out of my way to thank them and give them a firm handshake. I’ve seen plenty of others do it too.

Regardless of what you think of this war, if you see a troop, go out of your way to thank them. Their happiness at you doing that is all the thanks you need in return. God bless them all.

Michael Yon is usually Sue’s beat, but she said everyone had already been discussing Michael Yon’s latest dispatch from Iraq. Since I’ve been away from all the action and haven’t read any other blogs I thought I’d step on Sue’s beat this one time and talk about this piece.

I want you to read his post because it tells of the remarkable Stryker that has saved so many of our soldiers’ lives.

Here’s an example of what happened when the “General Lee” rolled over a powerful bomb:

As the bomb detonated beneath it, the General Lee arced like a dolphin from the sea of Hell. LT Brad Krauss can be seen flying out like Superman, if you look closely and imagine real hard. PFC Devon Hoch can clearly be seen standing in the back hatch. And that was it. Our guys’ lives seemed to be reduced to propaganda. The terrorists published reports that the soldiers were killed.

The story might have ended in the American press:

Four Soldiers Killed by Roadside Bomb Northwest of Baghdad

Four U.S. soldiers were killed today northwest of Baghdad when their Stryker vehicle was destroyed by a roadside bomb. Names of the service members are being withheld until notification of next of kin. The controversial Stryker vehicle is increasingly under fire by critics who claim that its armor is insufficient to protect troops in Iraq. Elsewhere, Iraqi and U.S. forces killed at least 50 people in Baghdad after three days of fighting in the area around Haifa street. About 130 people have been killed since Saturday. Separately, 27 bodies thought to be Shia were found shot. . . .

But that’s not exactly how it turned out.

Go over and read the story of this remarkable vehicle and its remarkable crew. Look at the video taken by the enemy as the Stryker gets hit and you can hear the shouts of “Allah Akbar!”

But, alas, Allah wasn’t there for the enemy that day but the Stryker was there for our soldiers, and for that I thank God Almighty.