Archive for the ‘Iraq War’ category

The First 100

January 4, 2007

As the clock ticks down to January 4th, when Democrats take control of the House and Senate, they are reminded of their “First 100 Hours” promises.  Those that may stand in the way of accomplishing Pelosi’s promises are not only Republicans, but anti-war Democrats as well.  Protesters lead by Cindy Sheehan, demanding that the Democrats cut funding for the war and bring the troops home beforedoing anything else, showed up during the Democrats press conference on lobby reform today.  They were so disruptive, that the intended speaker actually gave up and left the room. 

Pelosi has made many promises for the Democrats first 100 hours in control, but cutting funding and bringing the troops home was not one of them.  Will the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party keep the party from acting on the things they actually promised in the First 100 Hours?  Probably not.  Will they be very, very unhappy when they see that bringing the troops home is not the Democrats first priority?  Absolutely.  Will the American people see that the Democrats may be rendered ineffective by extremist elements they happily embrace during campaign fund raisers?  Time will tell.

 Let’s examine what Pelosi has promised for the First 100 Hours of the Democratically controlled Congress.  The first two are what would be considered the minimum.  The rest have been labeled as “if we have time”.

  1. Put new rules into place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
  2. Enact ALL the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
  3. Raise the Minimum Wage
  4. Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans in Half
  5. Allow government to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get a better price for medicare recipients
  6. Broaden stem cell research
  7. Pay as you go spending policy – no deficit increase

It will be interesting to watch the effectiveness of the Democrats over the next 100 hours, stay tuned for results.


Saudi Arabia Gets It, Why Can’t The Extreme Left?

December 13, 2006

The New York Times is reporting that Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it may financially assist Iraqi Sunni’s in any war that breaks out with the Shiites due to an American troop withdrawal.

What I fail to understand is the reasoning behind those on the left who continue to insist that Congress pull funding and bring our troops home now.  Do they not comprehend what the rest of the world finds to be such an obvious concept?  Is it entirely impossible for them to realize that American troops are the only plug in a genocidal dam that would most likely burst as soon as the last American boot left Baghdad?

Arguments can be made on both sides as to whether or not Iraq is already engulfed in civil war.  That point, however, is minor compared to what would happen  if American troops would leave before the country is stabilized.  Should Saudi Arabia support the Suni’s, and Iran Support the Shiites after an American pull-out, it is quite possible that the “civil war” in Iraq would grow into a regional conflict.  We, as American’s, cannot allow this to happen. 

Once we began this conflict by ousting Saddam from power, going home at our convenience was no longer an option.  Immediate withdrawal just isn’t a valid choice given the current situation.  It’s time all Americans wake up to this reality. 

Promises, Promises

November 20, 2006
Voting Machine Exit polling displayd by CNN for the November Congressional elections shows that one of the primary reasons the nation elected Democratic majorities to the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate was for a change in Iraq.  Democrats in many House and Senate races ran on a platform that included changing direction in the Iraq conflict.  Now that they’ve been voted into power in the U.S. House and Senate, what will they do?  Whereas the Congress has no real control over troop placement, they can do one thing…cut funding. 

But should the U.S. Congress decide to cut funding, there is only one outcome that can result…troop withdrawal.  The New York Times now reports that the same experts who criticized Rumsfeld’s management of the war are now saying that “Phased Redeployment” or Immediate Withdrawl would spell disaster for Iraq.  With this information in hand, will Democrats continue to push for troop withdrawal?

The Democrats are currently talking about “phased redeployment” plans, but it is just that, talk.  Unless the Bush administration chooses to decrease troop levels, (which is not likely in the next year) the only course change that Democrats could bring is the one that experts say will do the most damage.  Should the Bush administration choose to ignore Democrat threats, we could be looking at a standoff between the administration and Congress.  The question is, would the Democrat Congressional Leadership actually be dumb enough to back up the threat and cut funding for our troops? 

I give the Democrats more credit than that.  A small minority of left wing liberals in the Democrat party might argue that cutting funding for our troops serves the greater good, (Click here for an example of this kind of thinking) but a majority of them would not want to deal with the consequences in the next electoral cycle.  The Dems have backed themselves into a corner on this one.  They will have to choose which is worse:  Not keeping their election promises of changing Iraq policy, or cutting funding for our troops and facing the voters as the party who does not support the military in 2008.

This assumes, however, that the Bush administration will have some backbone over the course of the next two years and not cave in to Democrat demands of phased redeployment.  Should the Bush Administration choose to ignore the Democrats ideas for a new strategy in Iraq, Democrats will most likely back down before they pull funding; and will realize the small amount of power they hold in military matters when compared to the Commander-In-Chief.  Should the Democrats choose to cut funding, they will be crushed for it in 2008.

The War on Terror…Next Stop, Climate Change

November 17, 2006

Wednesday, U.N. cheif Kofi Annan demanded that world leaders give the same priority to Climate Change that they have given to the spread of WMD’s in the past.  In reaction to Annan’s comments, the Bush administration has been working around the clock to come up with a strategy for tackling the problem.  The Report Card has obtained exclusive, never before seen, details on the emerging plan.

Although specifics are unclear, sources that have heard rumors from staffers, that claim to be close to top officials, who claim to have seen a draft memo issued by the undersecretary to the secretary of the President leaked the following plan to The Report Card.  Please be aware that this plan is top secret, so don’t tell anyone.  If you are Climate Change, please stop reading now.  We would not want you to know what the plan for attacking you is.

The Bush administration first plans to provide the U.S. population with information linking Climate Change to terrorist organizations.  This, among other things, will provoke an already aggressive news media to begin discrediting the information.  After the news media misrepresents the information given by the administration, and twists the story into one of how there is no link between Climate Change and the 9/11 terror attacks, President Bush will schedule a time to address Congress.

 In his Congressional address, the President will add Climate Change to his list of members included in the axis of evil.  He will then justify this addition by telling Congress that there is substantial evidence from reliable intelligence sources showing that Climate Change exists.  He will underscore the point by assuring Congress that their is as much evidence present for Climate Change being a real threat as there was for Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 

President Bush will then call on Democrats to refrain from repealing the Patriot act, explaining that the continuance of the legislation would allow the government to hold Climate Change as an enemy combatant (should it be captured) for an undetermined amount of time in an undetermined location.  Additionally, the government can then begin wire taps on all those assisting Climate Change.  He will conclude his speech by urging the U.N. Security Council to expedite a meeting, for discussion on a resolution that would demand Climate Change to reveal it’s harmful effects.

The next phase of the plan involves waiting on the U.N. Security Council to draft 17 non-binding resolutions insisting that Climate Change stop it’s harmful effects…or else.  Climate Change will ignore all of these resolutions.  This will, of course, prompt a circus of investigations conducted by Hans Blix.  Each time Blix will come back and report that there is no clear evidence that Climate Change has harmful effects, and that he needs more time to conduct further investigations.  After the 17th resolution is drafted, President Bush will grow tired of waiting on the U.N. Security Council and begin assembling a coalition of the willing to remove Climate Change from power and seize it’s harmful effects.  France and Russia will object to this.

Once the coalition has militarily removed Climate Change as a threat, U.S. teams of scientists will go searching for it’s harmful effects.  After months of searching, the scientists will find that Climate Change actually had no harmful effects.  The Bush administration will then claim that the war was still justified because the U.S. took power away from an entity that was threatening the world in order to make it a safer place.

This time, military strategists will expect an insurgency.  It will most likely be launched by supporters of Climate Change (those living in colder than average climates), and will eventually be reinforced by environmental fundamentalists who insist that Climate Change sill exists.  Their leader will be Al Gore…

That’s the plan given to The Report Card by White House insiders.  Being the responsible news outlet that we are, The Report Card has verified all information stated above with no less than two White House parking attendants and the head of security at the White House Visitors Center.  It should be noted that no exit strategy was given to us by our sources…We’re sure they have one, our sources probably just didn’t know what it was.

Fencing…Not Just a Sport Anymore

November 16, 2006


Saudi Arabia Announced Tuesday that it will forge ahead with construction of a fence to seal it’s boarder with Iraq.  It went further, stating that Iraq is the primary source of terror in the region, and the fence will help protect against it’s spread.  The intention is to prevent the entry of Islamic Militants and Illegal Immigrants.


The same thing must be done on our southern boarder.  I don’t know why it is difficult for the United States citizenrey to understand that people crossing our southern boarder without going through the proper checks is the single largest hole we have in defending the homeland against attack.  Of course, the entire crisis is not fixed with a fence, but it’s a good start.

 In order to have any decent progress on immigration reform in this country, one of two things need to happen.  We either need to construct a fence (or find some other way of keeping them out), or concede that every 20 years or so the President will have to sign an amnesty bill granting all illegal immigrants amnesty.  A fence along the Southern boarder would ensure that immigration laws were followed.  Any new legislation, be it a guest worker program, less stringent immigration laws, or a no tolerance policy, must start with control of the population flow across the boarder. 

Granting amnesty every 20 years is not the answer.  Obviously, the Regan administration did nothing but encourage illegal immigrants to flock to this country when it granted amnesty the first time.  Why should we repeat mistakes?  Immigration policies must be in place in order to control the number and type of people we receive into our nation.  An open boarder is not practical, or wise.

It is unfathomable to me that as Washington continues to debate about what to do on illegal immigration, Saudi Arabia will be constructing their fence.


Iraq or I Ran

November 14, 2006


As American leadership finds the war in Iraq increasingly unpopular with its populace, the question arises “If not Iraq…Where?”  The obvious answer is home, back to the U.S., but is that the correct answer?

The United States and her allies have had to deal with fanatical leadership before, the largest example was in World War II.  British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to stop the war before it started by signing the Munich agreement in 1938.  His theory:  Appease Hitler by letting him annex the Sudetenland, thus avoiding cataclysmic losses on both sides.  Germany used this time to strengthen and align it’s forces for a strike against Poland, and later, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.  Meanwhile, an isolationist American people stood by and watched as European powers battled leaders of countries bent on world domination.  The United States, of course, was finally awakened on December 7th 1941 when the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 2001, after slumbering through several smaller terror attacks in the 1990’s, it was the United States that was quickly awakened by the terror attacks on New York and Washington DC on the morning of September 11th.  To their credit, several nations around the world came to the side of the U.S. as we all prepared to deal with the threat of Islamic fundamentalists and the terror groups they spawn.  As the main battle front in the war on terror shifted to Iraq, the U.S. found herself with fewer world partners.  This occured despite evidence of a growing terror presence in that country.

Now, in 2006, as the new Democrat lead U.S. Congress begins discussing the possibility of troop “redeployment” out of Iraq we must consider the consiquences.  Is the world ready to deal with the mess (probably civil war) that would be left in Iraq if America pulls out prematurely?  Would such a redeployment leave a breeding groud for terrorists, and give them time to strengthen their position?  Are we ready to have other fanatical leaders view us as a paper tiger, and have them step up plans for nuclear weapons with delivery systems that would reach our allies in the Middle East and Western Europe?  Can Western economies survive in a world where Iran controls Iraqi oil reserves, or will it be held hostage by a leader who has stated that he looks forward to the end of days?

If we redeploy out of Iraq, would we next target Iran?  Intelligence reports suggest that a larger number of combatants in Iraq are actually fighters that have crossed the boarder from Iran.  Would it not be better to take the fight directly to those who are doing the fighting in Iraq?  If the United States has learned the lessons of Vietnam, we should know that fighting surrogates from one country on another battlefield is not a good way to win a war.  However, strategically it would be out of the question to take the fight directly to those who are impeding Iraqi progress.  When compared to Iraq, Iran would be a harder, longer fight than most Americans would be willing to stomach.  Tehran knows this better than anyone, as their threats of building nuclear capabilities have increased as Americans’ opinion of the war in Iraq have decreased.  Should we redeploy out of Iraq before the job is finished, we will have confirmed their belief that the United States citizenry is not willing to pay the price for a long war with heavy casualties.

World opinion of the United States may rise temporarily if we choose to cut and run home.  But as events unfold, history may mark a redeployment as one of the worst mistakes of all time.  Our enemies will see this as a sign of weakness, and fanatical regimes will boost their efforts to take advantage.  Is it too late to stay and win in Iraq?  No, but a different strategy will be needed to see us through to victory.  The worst decision that could be made at this time is to redeploy before the new Iraqi government is solidly on its feet.