"Bush's Fault" Oct. 2007

Though this one is merely implicit, Sen. Harry Reid wins the "Bush's Fault" competition for October.

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

Perhaps an investigation in the president's possession of matches and/or a cigarette lighter is in order.

I feel a song coming on.



That one's an enduring tribute to Paul Shanklin's genius.

*****

Death toll in Iraq continues to drop

"I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We've said that all along. And now they're coming forward in masses," Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.

Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division and once served as the military spokesman in Baghdad, is a tireless cheerleader of the American effort in Iraq. But the death toll over the past two months appears to reinforce his optimism. The question, of course: Will it last?

(Yahoo!News)

Why shouldn't it, other than the fact that the U.S. cannot possibly succeed in Iraq?

The American force will pursue a new strategy of counter-insurgency by placing regional "police stations" and "outposts" where platoons of American soldiers will be assigned to provide security for some of the most volatile areas of the capital. Unfortunately for President Bush, the still-confident neo-conservatives and, more importantly, the United States military and the Iraqi people, this new attempt to secure the capital is also guaranteed to fail (and to fail badly).

(The Davidsonian)

Guaranteed.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said yesterday that the Bush administration's "surge" strategy in Iraq is doomed to fail and criticized Gen. David H. Petraeus for offering what he called an overly optimistic assessment of the situation on the ground.
(Washington Post)

Doomed.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

(Breitbart.com)

Lost.
Not accomplishing anything.

It might not be too late to cut off funding, Sen. Reid. You can still make your prediction come true.

*****

Generalissimo skewers Harry Reid

Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson bounced back from his dismal performance at Hugh Hewitt's Disneyland challenge, guest-posting at Hewitt's blog with a rundown of Senator Harry Reid's abrupt about-face on Senate rules.

Quoting an excerpt doesn't do it justice, but a teaser can't hurt.

What a difference eight months make. Senator majority leader Harry Reid, still smarting from having his hat handed to him twelve hours earlier on the Senate floor by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, opened the Friday session of the Senate by previewing coming events next week in the Senate. It was during his calendar talk on the Kennedy Student Loans and Grants Act that he noticed Utah Senator Robert Bennett also on the floor, and had this to say as an aside.
(HughHewitt.townhall.com)

Please read it all.

Those rumblin' stumblin' bumblin' Democrats

Sometimes I just can't believe what I see from the Democrat leadership.

From Powerline:

First there was Nancy Pelosi on Good Morning America, accusing President Bush of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers:

The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.

Pelosi's charge was not only patently false, it bordered on incomprehensible. Is she really suggesting that any time the President intends to send troops anywhere, he should wait until the next Congressional budget cycle to find out whether funds have been appropriated for that particular mission? She can't possibly mean that, but I can't think of any other interpretation.

Next was Harry Reid, who offered this legal opinion in a speech to the National Press Club:

The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.

As a proposition of Constitutional law, that is simply wrong. The President obviously does have such authority as commander in chief; the only sense that can be attached to Reid's comment is that he doesn't think the President should do it. At this point, we have no reason to think that President Bush disagrees. But why would Reid grandstand for headlines in this way, and at this time? He must know that the Iranians will read news stories about his speech and take it to mean that the President has no credible threat of military action. This is a perverse signal to send to an enemy while it is in the process of killing American soldiers in Iraq and while one of our aircraft carriers has been ordered to the Middle East.

What can Reid's motive possibly be, other than to aid our enemies and contribute to our problems in Iraq? I can't think of one. A credible threat of military action is obviously vital to our dealings with Iran.

(John Hinderaker, Powerline)

The majority party in Congress seems poised to seize its identity as the Defeatocrats. I had hoped for better from the party that gave us Joe Lieberman.