While I have frequently been quite critical of Andrew Sullivan on this blog, twice this month (here and here), I noted how he, like me, had faulted HRC for its unwillingness to debate gay marriage. In each of those posts, I wanted to make my argument (that the gay groups are more eager to attack Republicans than debate gay marriage) as solid as I could. And by bringing in someone with whom I am (more often than not) at odds, I sought to strengthen (at least one part of) my case.

To be sure, by so doing, I show Andrew to be critical of people other than the president, his party and their supporters. And acknowleding those views, I paint a picture of a more complex the image that many in the conservative blogosphere have of him — entirely in the camp of the Bush-hating left. If my primary purpose were to delegitimize Andrew Sullivan, I would not have mentioned his criticism of HRC (nor would I have praised him on a recent column).

Similarly, when the MSM was all in a tizzy over the NSA’s surveillance program of the international communications of terrorist suspects, conservative defenders of the program, frequently cited one of the nation’s leading liberal constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein, who found the program to be legal. We also referenced Clinton administration officials, including former Associate Attorney General John Schmidt, who held that “the President had the constitutional authority to authorize the NSA program.”

If our primary purpose were to discredit liberal constitutional scholars and that Democratic Administration, we would not have used these individuals’ opinions to buttress our own arguments.

In both cases, we conservatives cited the opinions of those with whom we might otherwise disagree in order to make the strongest argument possible. If, in so doing, we show certain liberals to be less one-sided in their views than our rhetoric might sometimes suggest, so be it. By honestly reporting their opinions, we’re presenting them accurately. More often than not, people aren’t as simple as their adversaries would have them be.

Which brings me back to the gay organizations’ failure to debate gay marriage — a significant point of which I have made much these past two weeks. If gay groups were interested in making the strongest possible argument against the Marriage Protection Act (MPA), they would have repeatedly pointed out that this is the one issue where, since taking office, the Vice President has publicly distanced himself from the president.

(more…)

Only SIX Democrats in the Senate voted to withdraw from Iraq?  Just SIX??  (Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Byrd, Harkin, Kennedy).

Senate Rejects US Troop Pullout in Iraq – AP

The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year’s end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.

The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed “only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces” to remain in 2007.

What about how bad the war is going?  What about all the talk of American aggression?  What about all of the accusations of Marines murdering and raping Iraqi civilians at will?  And what of all of the talk of the fighting in Iraq causing more terrorism?  Talk about having it both ways! 

Only SIX Democrat Senators actually voted in what they believe — that retreat from Iraq is the most responsible way to proceed in the War on Terror.  Well, good for them.

The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. (GP Ed. Note:  Priceless!)  

It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said if the United States withdrew, “I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication.” He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States.

Democrats sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, (GP Ed. Note: WHY??  Isn’t this an important issue for Democrats?) and the vote occurred quickly.

But what IS the Democrat plan to fight the War on Terror?  Is it retreat ala Kennedy/Kerry/Boxer?  What of the majority of Democrats who support staying in Iraq until the job is done?  Do they believe that?  Or do they also have another plan for fighting the War on Terror?  I’m losing track of the Democrat message as quickly as they are losing their principles!

Man, this party of FDR and JFK is quite laughable these days.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee faces an unexpectedly tough challenge in his party’s August primary for another term as United States Senator from Connecticut, a former Democratic state chairman in the Nutmeg State and close ally of the Senator is urging Senator Joe Lieberman to “run for re-election as an independent and not trust his career to left-leaning Democratic primary voters in August.”

With at least one poll showing the three-term incumbent’s margin over left-wing challenger Ned Lamont to be in the single digits, some see a chance of Connecticut Democrats rejecting Al Gore’s running mate. John F. Droney, Jr., the former state chairman says it would be “total insanity” for Lieberman “to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population.” Staffers on Lieberman’s campaign “distanced” themselves from Droney’s suggestion.

Given that many liberal activists are furious at Lieberman for his general support of the war in Iraq, they’re certain to vote in the August primary when more level-headed Democrats are focused more on summer vacations than politics. A low turnout primary clearly favors this challenger.

Eager to see the angry left repudiated, many conservatives are rooting for Lieberman to best Lamont; it would show that even Democrats understand the stakes of the war in Iraq. Or at least aren’t one-issue voters. An angry-left victory in Connecticut, however, could further imperil the Democrats’ increasingly shaky chances of taking control of either house of Congress this fall.

Maybe we should think twice before choosing sides in the Connecticut race. The good news of the past week has reenergized the GOP, with one poll showing Republican approval of the president jumping over 10% in the past month.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ chances in November seem dependent on bad news.

(more…)

I have to give a hat tip for the above headline from a caller to Sean Hannity’s show today. He said it to illustrate that the captured documents of Zarqawi actually show how well our military is doing in the War on Terror – Iraqi Theatre.

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi’a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance’s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance’s assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance’s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Make no mistake. This is an Al-Qaeda in Iraq document. The “resistance” is Al-Qaeda, which was led by a now dead Jordanian. This “resistance” is the worldwide fight against America, not the “insurgency” in Iraq.

Glenn Reynolds makes an observant point on the Zarqawi documents…

Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military operation. The press plays a symbiotic role, and isn’t willing to address that.

The Zarqawi document goes on to show that his forces, unlike American Democrats, realize this is truly a global war.

We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iran, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi’a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi’a supply line.

I’m sure this treasure trove of information from Zarqawi’s safe house will result in more good news for America in its fight against Islamic terror — that, of course, automatically means bad news for American Democrats and the American news media who are aiding and abetting our enemies by undermining our war effort here and abroad.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Just before bed, I saw the last segment of Hannity & Colmes where Hannity replayed an interview with the Vice President who said that the documents had not yet been authenticated as products of Al-Qaeda.

At least this week, Senator Hillary Clinton seems to be the only Democrat that has a spine and realizes the long term consequences of the Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy. 

…another top Senate Democrat, Hillary Clinton, insisted that it would not be a “smart strategy” to create a timeline to leave Iraq.

Clinton on Tuesday made a plea for party unity, urging Democrats to coalesce around their opposition to the Bush administration, rather than being fractured over Iraq and other internal party disagreements.

She, of course, was booed at that gathering of “progressive Democrats.”  The Democrats that are cheered now by their wacko base are those that think the War On Terror should be fought through the expected policy of American Retreat:  Vietnam 1975, Iran 1979, Lebanon 1981, Somalia 1993.  It is kind of scary to think that Hillary is the only sensible sounding Democrat on Iraq and the larger War on Terror.  Senator Kerry still believes that the WOT is a “police action” after all.

Perhaps the Democrats vying to win over America to their brand of cowardice should read Michael Barone’s spot-on column from earlier this week. (Democrats Are Winning… Except At The Polls)

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there — a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women — and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.

In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage — this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.

We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.

All of this does not go unnoticed by America’s voters.

American do not like to lose.  And they especially do not like their own elected officials portraying this country as a loser nation and on the wrong side of history.  Jimmy Carter learned that lesson well in 1980.  September 10th Democrats will continue to learn that lesson at the ballot box in the War on Terror Era.  I think Hillary may be the only Democrat too smart for that fate.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)