Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq "is a failure," adding that President Bush's troop surge has "not produced the desired effect."

I'd like to know what alternate reality universe Ms. Pelosi is inhabiting, because she sure isn't anywhere near inhabiting the same universe I'm in!

H/T specialrpt posting in Quicknews

Democrats turn to GOP on new Iraq bill

As reported here, Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto - unlike the one Congress will send him [this] week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.

I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".

I mean, it really is that simple.

Senate OK sends Iraq bill to Bush

As reported here, [i]n a bold challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.

The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."

President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.

The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.

So why go ahead with this?

Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.

I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.

The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.

Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.

But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.

Maliki Speaks Out

As reported here, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER NOURI AL-MALIKI, speaking at last week's international conference in Baghdad, reminded many who needed reminding exactly what is at stake in the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, few people in Europe seem to have heard the message.

The great enemy, Maliki warned, is the ideology of terrorism, which threatens not only Iraq but every decent and peace-loving nation on the planet. "The terrorism that today is trying to kill Iraqis in Baghdad, Hilla, Mosul, and Anbar," he said, "is the same as the terror that intimidated the population of Saudi Arabia, targeted the people of Egypt, attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and hit underground trains in Madrid and London."

In other words, whatever one thinks of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become another front in the war on radical Islam. This faith-based ideology assumes various shapes--Sunni suicide bombers, al Qaeda operatives--yet all pursue the same overriding objective: to turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism, guided by a militant and murderous vision of Islam.

This is, of course, exactly the argument made by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--which probably explains why media outlets such as the BBC downplayed Maliki's blunt assessment.

The Iraqi prime minister can be faulted for his handling of security issues and failure to politically unite the country's religious factions. Yet he seems to understand the nature and difficulty of his task, a difficulty that is hard to overstate and greatly complicated by daily acts of barbarism. For a few moments last week--moments that surely offended the sensibilities of political and media sophisticates--Maliki reminded the world that America is not the problem in Iraq or in the Middle East. Terrorism is the problem. And it is the reason Iraq is fighting for its life.

We would do well to remember - and remind the Democrat politicians - that America is not the problem in Iraq, but that terrorism is. Fault Mr. Maliki all you want for his past reliance on Al-Sadr to keep him in power, but know this - he gets it, while the vast majority of Democrat politicians don't have a clue.

Howard refuses withdrawal date

As reported here, AUSTRALIAN Prime Minister John Howard and his Iraqi counterpart Nuri al-Maliki today refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of Australian troops, vowing they will stay in Iraq until "terrorists are defeated".

In a press conference with Mr Howard, Mr Maliki was first to admit he didn't want to see a timeline put on Australian troop withdrawal.

"There has been some progess but we still wish the Australians to remain until we have completely defeated the terrorists," Mr Maliki said.

Mr Howard immediately backed Mr Maliki's view, saying: "We have made progress but there is still work to be done."

"I told (Mr Maliki) that Australia will continue its presence in Iraq to assist in bringing about a situation where the Iraqi people are reasonably able to provide for their own future and for their own security.

"We both agreed that the future lies in collaboration between improved security and reconciliation in the political process."

Fortunately for the Iraqi's, Prime Minister Howard isn't hampered by a Democrat controlled Congress pushing for an early withdrawal of troops!