CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Edwards Derides War On Terror

In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards calls war on terrorism a "bumper sticker:"

The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan.

[. . .]

By framing this as a 'war,' we have walked straight into the trap that the terrorists have set -- that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.
In an interview with CNN, Edwards said President George W. Bush and his administration were responsible for Osama bin Laden still being at large.

My response to Edwards' severe case of denial is threefold.

First, 9/11 was not a bumper sticker. Mr. Edwards should sit down and contemplate the planes flying into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the struggle on board flight 93. He should think about the horror of people deciding they had to jump to their deaths from the towers and the fear of New Yorkers running for their lives as the towers disintegrated into that burning pile of rubble.

Second, Edwards should think about what he said in October 2001, when he predicted unity with President Bush on the War on Terrorism:

Finally, Edwards ought to recall what he said upon accepting the 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nomination:

None of us will ever forget where we were on September the 11th. We all share the same terrible images, the towers falling in New York, the Pentagon in flames, a smoldering field in Pennsylvania. We share a profound sadness for the nearly 3,000 lives that were lost.

And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight the war on terrorism and keep the American people safe. We can do that.

[. . .]

We will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to make sure this never happens again in our America.

[. . .]

We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.

And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

Edwards seemed to think the war on terror was more than a bumper sticker in 2004. Instead of John's two Americas we have two John Edwards. One saw a war on terror in 2004. The other sees a bumper sticker in 2007.

Vote In The 2008 GOP Strawpoll

This is GOP Bloggers' April 2008 Straw Poll.

You get to pick which candidates you find acceptable and which ones you don't in order to determine who has the largest net positive or net negative support. You can also choose which candidate is your first choice for the GOP nomination in 2008.

I Love These Guys

My friend and esteemed RedState colleague, Jeff Emanuel, has an article featured featured on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Jeff's article, "I Love These Guys," is about the fond feelings even journalists with antiwar sentiments develop for the troops with whom the reporters are embedded:

It doesn't matter how skeptical of the war a journalist might be, according to an Army public affairs officer who spoke with me about it on condition of anonymity. "So often, they come out of that experience and--even if their opinion of the war hasn't changed--they're completely won over by the troops."

[. . .]

"No matter what you think of the war, or what has happened here, you cannot be around the soldiers and not be completely affected. They are amazing people, and they represent themselves and the Army better than anyone could ever imagine." A retired Army officer concurred, telling me that "young troops are some of the best goodwill ambassadors we've ever produced. It would never occur to one to not tell you what he's really thinking, and they are so earnest" that it is almost impossible not to be won over by them if given enough time.

Go read the whole thing.

Well done Jeff.

Bill Richardson Lopez

Bill Richardson goes bipolar:

In the heartland of America he is just Gov. Bill Richardson. But in big Hispanic states like California the Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful tells voters he is also a Lopez.

"California has a lot of Hispanic voters and they don't know I'm Hispanic," said Richardson, governor of New Mexico and son of a Mexican woman named Lopez.

[. . .]

"I am saying 'It's Bill Richardson Lopez and I am one of you and I would like you to consider me, not because I am Hispanic but because I have the best program for the country'," he told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.

Suitably Flip reminds us that Mr. Richardson Lopez has pondered this pandering for 27 years.

Richardson - vote for me because I'm Hispanic - so disappointing.

Hoyer Confirms Dems Drop Withdrawal Timelines

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirms the war spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq. According to the Associated Press, the House plans to vote on the bill Thursday, 108 days after President Bush sent Congress his urgent request for funds to support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports "senior White House advisers say 'it's premature' to 'announce' an agreement on the war supplemental."

Maybe the Dems aren't yet done trying to score petty partisan political points instead of supporting the troops.

The Primary Battleground

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, writes in the Wall Street Journal about "The Left's Iraq Muddle."

After reminding us that we had ample reason to liberate Iraq from Saddam, Kerrey attempts to focus the left on the consequences of accepting defeat in Iraq:

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically, "yes."

The country needs to debate Iraq. We need to step away from left's eyes wide shut rush to leave Iraq as soon as they can find the votes and focus on what happens if the left gets their way.

Al Qaeda and its bands of terrorist thugs attacked us on 9/11 because the organization thought we didn't have the stomach to fight. Following many attacks on Americans in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s culminating in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, America withdrew. Our response to attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency, America again withdrew this time from Somalia after U.S. troops were attacked in Mogadishu in 1993. The 1993 attacks on World Trade Center, the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, resulted in angry words, sometimes accompanied by cruise missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Last week, Bernard Lewis, asked Was Osama Right? Lewis writes that America's response to 9/11, so different previous American practice, shocked the Islamist extremists and required a revision of their assessment that America did not have the stomach to fight them.

Lewis warns that the public discourse inside the U.S. is persuading Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory.

We will regret a failure to consider how our enemies will react if we give up in Iraq and allow the terrorists to win the war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Dems To Fund War Without Withdrawal Timeline

Finally, 105 days after President Bush sent Congress his urgent request for funds to support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha have decided that they have gotten all the partisan political points to be gained from withholding funds for our troops fighting the war:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a war spending bill to President Bush by week's end, with the intention was to avoid a veto.

It's about time. Congress' failure to act in a responsible and timely way belies the Democrats claims that they support the troops, if not the mission. The Delay in providing the funding has resulted in problems for our troops.

The Defense Department has notified Congress that in order to meet the force protection needs of the Marine Corps and the Army, it has been forced to borrow funds from other Marine and Army procurement programs. The borrowing means using funding intended for tactical vehicle replacement, Humvees and Humvee equipment, the tactical communications modernization program, and upgrades for other vehicles.

The borrowing forced by the Democrats and their preference to make partisan political points rather than fund the troops has negative impacts. On April 2, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, and Gen. James T. Conway, sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, stating:

Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations. The impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound. … Reprogramming is a short-term, cost-inefficient solution that wastes our limited resources. Spending restrictions will delay and disrupt our follow-on forces as they prepare for war, possibly compromising future readiness and strategic agility.

In a March 28, letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker and Acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, warned:

Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.

Right, the Democrats support the troops.

If the Democrats truly want to end the war, they can refuse to fund it. If they don't want to end the war, the Democrats should provide the required funds to fight it. Having made their political points, it is way past time for the Democrats to stop using the money, needed to support our troops fighting the war, to seek some partisan political advantage.

You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up

A police officer steals marijuana, bakes it in brownies, calls 911, and tells the operator he thinks he and his wife are dead.

Democrats Sour On Kennedy's Immigration Deal

Democrats aren't impressed with Kennedy's immigration deal.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a statement expressed serious concern over Kennedy's agreement:

Their agreement can serve as a starting point for the Senate debate next week. I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration. We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Reid questioned whether "we're going to be able to pass it."

Only two Democrats, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Dianne Feinstein of California, stood beside Kennedy when he announced his immigration deal. Seven Republican senators and two Cabinet secretaries joined the three Democrats.

According to Bloomberg, Democrats expressed doubts over provisions to create a temporary-worker program and to reduce the emphasis on uniting families when deciding which legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S.

New York Senator Charles Schumer said, "There are a lot of Democrats who want to see it improved." New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez called Kennedy's deal "far to the right" last year's Senate immigration reform effort.

Maryland Senator Ben Cardin expressed concern, saying low-wage workers seeking to reunite with their families could suffer.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO condemned Kennedy's deal, saying it strikes at "the reunification of families" and expands temporary-worker programs that can amount to "virtual servitude."

Democratic presidential frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama and former Edwards reacted cautiously. Hillary said she will study the proposal to make sure it "does not lead to the creation of a new underclass in our country." Obama, told reporters the temporary-worker plan and the merit-based point system must be "carefully examined" to ensure they are "just and humane." Edwards said he had concerns about parts of the proposal, including a “poorly conceived guest worker program.”

West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd said, "We should not give a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants who want to flaunt the laws of this land."

According to The Ledger, North Dakota Senator Byron L. Dorgan said he would offer an amendment to eliminate the guest worker program from the bill.

House Democrats likewise don't seem to like Kennedy's deal.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said it will be difficult to pass an immigration bill similar to the Senate proposal.

Representative Xavier Becerra, Democrat of California and a former chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said he had grave concerns about the Senate bill.

All in all, not a very auspicious Democratic reaction to Kennedy's deal.

Immigration Agreement Reached

Senate negotiators reached agreement on immigration legislation, which provides a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens.

As I posted here, it is not yet clear that the agreement will manage to slow illegal immigration anymore that did the failed 1986 Immigration Reform Act.

It is not encouraging that the world's greatest deliberative body will be given the 1,000 page text of the immigration bill late Friday, and Senators are expected to vote on the bill Monday. Weeks after the Senate passed the 850-page Senate immigration reform bill last year, House Republicans were finding unheralded features in that Senate bill such as these beauties:

Illegal aliens allowed to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal work.

The U.S. Required to consult with Mexican officials before commencement of any fence construction along the border.

Discounted in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities for illegal aliens who reside in those states. Meanwhile, legal immigrants and citizens who reside outside that state must still pay the full price.

Complete amnesty for employers who have illegally hired the millions of aliens and provided the magnet that drew them here in the first place.

A path to citizenship to illegals who have snuck across the border, counterfeited documentation, committed Social Security fraud and cheated on taxes.

Even more discouraging are the talking points Hugh Hewitt published earlier today. Hewitt refers to the talking points as "four pages of crap." If the Senators recent agreement was truly "reform," could not the agreement withstand a meaningful deliberation? The fact that the Senate is rushing to vote on it too quickly, with only a farcical debate that can not pass a simple smell test can only lead to one conclusion.

UPDATE: RedState has learned that the Senates 1,000-page Immigration "Reform" bill was released to members of the Senate this afternoon. A Cloture vote is scheduled for Monday. If passed, the floor debate will be cut off after 30 hours of additional debate time.

UPDATE II There is no immigration bill:

Multiple Senate sources confirmed that, despite Senator Kennedy and others’ original statements, as of 10:00 PM eastern daylight time Thursday night, “no bill presently exists and probably won't until tomorrow at the earliest” because “the lawyers are still behind closed doors putting it together.” Senate sources also confirmed that “the bill probably will not be online [and available to the public] in its final form until after the Senate has voted on it.” Furthermore, even Senators involved in the process itself offered contradictory reports on its contents. For example, at the same time that John Kyl (R-AZ) was on one news channel praising the bill’s elimination of chain migration – a key provision he himself had championed – Reid was telling another network that that provision would not be in the bill’s final draft.

More at Captain's Quarters, Riehl World View, and Right Wing News.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics.