Bush in Iraq

The Bush administration has seen it’s fair share of good news in the last few weeks. Well deserved good news too.

In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.

The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a big one. That guy has been responsible for so much violence in Iraq, it’s great seeing him bite the dust.

With Zarqawi dead, a new Baghdad government in place and Rove freed from prosecutor’s cross hairs, the White House hopes it can pivot to a new stage in which it is no longer on the defensive. In recent weeks, under new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, the White House has tried to do more to set an agenda, moving aggressively into the immigration debate and agreeing to join direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program under certain conditions.

Anyway, Bush made a “secret” visit to Iraq yesterday. Some think he may be laying the groundwork for troop reductions in Iraq. I don’t really see that though. To me it seems to be more of a pep-rally sort of thing. Bush was there letting everyone know that we need to stay until the job is done. Or at least until the Iraqi forces are able to handle the insurgents on their own. Even when the Iraqi forces are ready, we should still maintain a military force in the country, just to ensure the job is done right. It’d be terribly depressing if the country fell into a civil war or something once the U.S. packs up and leaves. In my eyes, we need to have a decent number of troops there for the next 50 years, just to protect our investment. “Our investment” being the nation of Iraq itself, not their oil.

Flopping Aces has some nice pictures and a video. Hot Air also has the video and a link to the transcript from Bush’s speech.

Others blogging include:
Blogs for Bush
California Conservative
Big Dog’s Weblog

Bush Endorses Amnesty. Sorta.

There’s been an enormous amount of immigration talk lately. Congress is currently looking at various immigration reform proposals. Newt Gingrich thinks the U.S. should just start enforcing our current immigration laws, which really would make the most sense.

Apparently, President Bush “generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.” Granting amnesty to illegals would probably force me to move out of the country for good. Although, this could possibly result in a huge voter turnout by hispanics in favor of republicans.

I’ll be writing more about immigration in the next couple days, and how the mexican-american population usually manages to sabotage their own agenda.

Other blogs on the bush amnesty subject include Outside The Beltway, Michelle Malkin, and Iowa Voice.

Woodward Apologizes, Cheney Speaks

This is just getting silly now. I say just quit now and forget anything ever happened. There will be no end, there will be no conclusion. There’ll always be someone who’s not talking. Bob Woodward says he knew of Valerie Plame a month before Libby supposedly leaked her identity. It’s kinda hard for Libby to be the source of the leak when others knew of it before he had a chance to “leak.”

Bob Woodward apologized to The Washington Post yesterday for failing to reveal for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of who disclosed her identity mushroomed into a national scandal.

Woodward, an assistant managing editor and best-selling author, said he told Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. that he held back the information because he was worried about being subpoenaed by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel leading the investigation.

“I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner,” Woodward, who testified in the CIA leak investigation Monday, said in an interview. “I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That’s job number one in a case like this.”


No shit ya shoulda spoke up earlier. I can understand where he’s coming from though. I can’t say that I’d be too enthused about revealing new information in an investigation of that magnitude. I’d probably keep my mouth shut too, but this isn’t about me. Scott at ScrappleFace thinks special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may be close to discovering who told Valerie Plame that she was an undercover CIA agent. Could it be Woodward? Sure, I don’t see why not. heh.

Don Surber is happy to see Dick Cheney speak out against the various lies about the Bush administration produced by those mostly in the democratic party. It’s definately a good thing to see. If I were in control I’d be out there blasting these guys all the time, Bush and Cheney have been too quiet until recently. From Don Surber:

Sixty years ago, such a speech would not be necessary. People understood the need to put partisanship aside and to rally behind our troops. In Vietnam, I was told by many that they would support the military if our nation were ever attacked.
That too has now been proved to be a lie.

Reuters via Yahoo News on Cheney’s speech:

“The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone — but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history,” said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq’s weapons program.

Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war “is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.”

“Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against
Saddam Hussein,” he said in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Way to go Mr. Vice President. Get right at the heart of the matter and try not to offend anyone. The Washington Post has a little on the speech by Cheney now too.

Lots of blog coverage on Woodward:
Ace of Spades HQ
Michelle Malkin
Outside The Beltway
Wizbang
Big Brass Blog
Decision ’08
NewsBusters

And blogs on Cheney:
The Belgravia Dispatch
Just One Minute
Michelle Malkin
Pundit Guy

This post is linked at Cao’s Blog, Jo’s Cafe, Euphoric Reality, The Political Teen, TMH’s Bacon Bits and Stop the ACLU.

That’s Right, We Use White Phosphorus

The BBC came out with a Q&A about white phosphorus today:

The Pentagon’s confirmation that it used white phosphorus as a weapon during last year’s offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja has sparked criticism.


Why criticism? Oh yah, because we’re the U. S. of A. Sure, some civilians probably were affected by the white phosphorus, but there’s always some collateral damage. There’s no doubt white phosphorus is dangerous and should only be used in the most severe of circumstances. I think Fallujah last year is a key example of one of those circumstances warranting the use of white phosphorus.

What are the international conventions?

Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The US – unlike 80 other countries including the UK – is not a signatory to Protocol III.


See that there? Yah, there’s nothing prohibiting the U.S. from using white phosphorus against any group, even civilians. So, if we did intentionally use white phosphorus against civilian groups, what action would be taken? Probably none. I highly doubt the U.S. used white phosphorus on civilians intentionally. If there were civilians affected, it’s because they were sticking around in Fallujah with the insurgents. And if that is the case, the civilians deserved everything the insurgents got. Why would a civilian stick around other than to assist the insurgents or to protect their homes? My point is, white phosphorus wouldn’t be used agains civilians unless they were presenting some sort of threat, which they most likely were.

And, besides that, white phosphorus isn’t even a chemical weapon. John Cole seems to feel pretty strongly about that. It’s almost always used to provide a smoke screen. It will produce a very dense cloud of smoke that can provide cover for troops. Like everything, white phosphorus can be used for evil.

My 2 cents.

Bush Bites Back

It’s been a long time coming. Bush has taken heat from the left for far too long, without fighting back much. They constantly engage Bush, citing he mislead the American public with his reasons for going to war. I may be mistaken, but didn’t a pretty large number of Democrats vote for going to war?

Bush gave a killer speech today, slamming Democrats for rewriting the history of how the war in Iraq began.

While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

I doubt this will really improve the situation for Bush. Democrats will continue lying, because well, that’s what they do. They’re already denying they’ve tried rewriting history. Lets hope Bush will keep it up and not allow the dems to continue berating him at every chance they get. What better time to initially bite back than Veterans Day?

The Political Teen has the video. Others blogging:
Iowa Voice
Pundit Guy
Point Five
Don Surber
Confederate Yankee
Stop the ACLU
Protein Wisdom