Fresh Pickings from the Vine

[Master Capper]

House Republicans Worry About Retirements
"Republican House leaders, aware that incumbents rarely lose, are struggling to prevent a wave of retirements that would bolster Democratic prospects to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November elections," Bloomberg reports.

With Rep. Sherwood Boehlert's (R-NY) departure, 17 Republicans have now announced their retirement compared with just nine Democrats.

"Retirements played a role the last time control of the House changed hands, when 28 Democrats decided to leave their seats in 1994."

"Prohibiting gay marriage and boosting the minimum wage are expected to be the most common election questions on state ballots come November, and their inclusion could influence gubernatorial races around the country," Stateline.org reports


"I think she ought to read the Constitution again."

-- Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), quoted by the Dallas Morning News, in response to Justice Sandra Day O?Connor?s admonishment of legislators for their attacks on the judiciary.


Washington Whispers: "Republicans looking for some excitement in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential race are starting to chant Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. While Rudolph Giuliani, New York's 9/11 mayor and national hero, hasn't talked about running, there are hints he's ready. A key Republican senator tells us that Rudy's peeps are already at work in Florida. And we hear that he's making a trip to Iowa -- home of the first 2008 presidential caucus -- to help raise money for Republican gubernatorial candidate Rep. Jim Nussle


Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes writes that Bush needs a staff shakeup. His suggestions: Condi as VP, Lieberman as Secretary of State, Cheney as Sec Def, Dan Senor as White House Press Secretary, Zalmay Khalilzad as National Security Adviser, and switching Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove?s jobs.



97. Number of days the House of Representatives is scheduled to be in session this year. USA Today notes that?s ?fewer days than the Congress Harry Truman labeled as ?do-nothing? during his 1948 re-election campaign.?



Transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So we have to start thinking about a staged withdrawal?

HAGEL: Well, we always should be thinking about that. But somehow we are going to have to bring into the mix here the obligations, responsibility, not just of the Iraqi people but of the region.

And this mindless kind of banter about, well, if we leave, the whole place falls apart; we can?t leave; we can?t even think about leaving. Wait a minute: You just showed on your screen the cost to the American people of the last three years.

It?s helping bankrupt this country, by the way. We didn?t think about any of that and not just the high cost of lives and the continuation of that but our standing in the world.

And I would define it this way. Are we better off today than we were three years ago? Is the Middle East more stable than it was three years ago? Absolutely not. It?s more unstable.



Transcript:

RUSSERT: Some in the administration say the media is distorting the good news that?s coming out of Iraq.

MURTHA: They said the same thing about Vietnam. They said the same thing over and over and over about Vietnam. They said we?re winning the war in Vietnam. You could go back and get quotes from Vietnam and you?ll see the same kind of reports. The media is the one that?s distorting. Everything is going fine in Vietnam. Well, everything is not going fine in Iraq. They have to realize it. When the whole world is against you, when our international reputation has been diminished so substantially, when all the countries in the region say we?d be better off without us being in Iraq, when the people themselves in Iraq say ? and American people say it, I mean, who is right?



SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, all along the government has been very optimistic. You remain optimistic. But I remember when you were saying we?d be greeted as liberators, you played down the insurgency ten months ago. You said it was in its last throes. Do you believe that these optimistic statements may be one of the reasons that people seem to be more skeptical in this country about whether we ought to be in Iraq?

CHENEY: No, I think it has less to do with the statements we?ve made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality, than it does the fact that there is a constant sort of perception if you will that?s created because what is newsworthy is the carbomb in Baghdad, it?s not all the work that went on that day in 15 other provinces in terms of making progress in rebuilding Iraq.


Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said today that Iraq is in a civil war:

It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is?We are in a terrible civil conflict now.

In 2004, Bush said it was unacceptable to question the credibility of Allawi?s assessment of Iraq:

Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here; he is the leader of that country. He?s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can?t change the dynamics on the ground if you?ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq.

Does that only apply when Allawi says what Bush wants to hear?


All 21 airports in a recent government test failed to detect bomb-making materials during security screenings. ?Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one stopped these materials.?

 

[smurphy]

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said today that Iraq is in a civil war:

It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is?We are in a terrible civil conflict now.

In 2004, Bush said it was unacceptable to question the credibility of Allawi?s assessment of Iraq:

Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here; he is the leader of that country. He?s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can?t change the dynamics on the ground if you?ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq.

Does that only apply when Allawi says what Bush wants to hear?

An excellent question. According to Rumsfeld, Cheney, Manson and friends the answer is very clearly "YES". It only applies when Allawi says what Bush wants to hear.

 

[kosar]

You notice they're putting on the WW2 comparison blitz lately, as if there is even one similarity whatsoever? Yesterday Rummy compared us leaving to 'handing over Germany to the Nazi's' and W today in his speech explained how Japan was once our enemy but is now our friend. They're really reaching here. Scrambling.

 

[Master Capper]

Can Republicans Change the Subject?
Fred Barnes: "Politics is pretty simple. If the debate in an upcoming election puts your party at a disadvantage, it makes sense to try to change the debate. At the moment, the 2006 midterm election is framed as a referendum on the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, putting Republican candidates on the defensive. Party strategists, led by chairman Ken Mehlman, want to rejigger the debate so it's about a choice between candidates, putting Democratic candidates on the defensive as well. In short, they want it to be a choice election, not a referendum election."



Bush Falsely Claims He Never Linked Hussein To September 11



Bush, this afternoon:

First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don?t think we ever said ? at least I know I didn?t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.

In fact, Bush justified the war against Iraq by directly linking it to 9/11:

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001



Army Embraces Iraq-Vietnam Analogy
In April 2004, President Bush rejected analogies between Iraq and Vietnam, saying such a comparison ?sends the wrong message to our troops?:

QUESTION: What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

But the Wall Street Journal reports today that America?s military commanders are looking to Vietnam for lessons on how to deal with violence in Iraq:

The last time Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Baghdad, back in December, the top U.S. military commander there gave him an unusual gift.

Gen. George Casey passed him a copy of ?Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam,? written by Lt. Col. John Nagl. Initially published in 2002, the book is brutal in its criticism of the Vietnam-era Army as an organization that failed to learn from its mistakes and tried vainly to fight guerrilla insurgents the same way it fought World War II. [?]

Col. Nagl?s book is one of a half dozen Vietnam histories ? most of them highly critical of the U.S. military in Vietnam ? that are changing the military?s views on how to fight guerrilla wars. [?]

The embrace of these Vietnam histories reflects an emerging consensus in the Army that in order to move forward in Iraq, it must better understand the mistakes of Vietnam.

Rumsfeld should read Col. Nagl?s book carefully. Maybe then he?d stop making false comparisons between Iraq and post-WWII Germany.



Saturday night was the third anniversary of George W. Bush affixing his name to the following certification, necessary by statute to start a war he had decided to start years before.

March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,



GEORGE W. BUSH


The fact that this letter was riddled with lies has never been in much dispute in the center-left blogosphere. But you would hardly know about this certification from listening to our Democratic leaders these last three years, as they have never brought this falsehood out in the open and shown it to the American people for the impeachable offense that it is. Yet the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate has shown themselves repeatedly to be afraid of their own shadows in holding the White House accountable for its record of mendacity and impeachable offenses. There is little evidence this will change as we approach a midterm election where it appears that both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi simply want to back into November as quickly as possible.

But while Reid and Pelosi fail to construct a consistent narrative and hammer it, nor fail to hold the media?s feet to the fire for their GOP bias and war cheerleading, the GOP itself doesn?t like what it sees and lone Democrats bravely make a case without support from their peers. It isn?t that difficult; all Reid and Pelosi have to do is have staff read Kevin Phillips? new book and build your attack upon his central arguments. But apart from Phillips, there are other sources of inspiration for Reid and Pelosi, if they only had the willingness to look. The sources are easy to find.

Bill Kristol says on Fox of all places that Russ Feingold was bravely and cleverly making the NSA spying debacle a problem for the White House. Did any of the leadership aside from Dick Durbin come to Feingold?s support over the last week and weave this into the narrative against White House illegality? No. In fact, Pelosi took a shot at Feingold.

George Will said yesterday that Iraq isn?t working, and Chuck Hagel also said that the generals have told him we are already in a civil war. Did any of the leadership come out recently and start pushing the frame that we are trapped in a civil war and that John Murtha has been right these last several months, and talk openly about the Administration?s inability to shift tactics to deal with the realities on the ground? No.

Shooter?s former chief of staff has fingered the former deputy National Security Advisor for being complicit in the outing of a national security asset. Steve Hadley worked for our current Secretary of State and is our current National Security Advisor. Yet he, his boss the Secretary of State, and both the Vice President and the deputy White House Chief of Staff still have national security clearances. Has the Democratic leadership made this a part of an ongoing narrative about weakening national security for political gain? No.

Reid and Pelosi may want November to be tomorrow so that they can cut to the chase and rely upon bad poll numbers for their argument in support of electing more Democrats to the House and Senate. Reid for his part has cooked up some media event strategy based on using veterans and the flag as props to bash Bush on national security without going for the jugular. As for Pelosi, she seems content to let Rahm Emanuel write a book for an August release date that would supposedly be the manifesto for the remaining weeks of the campaign. Swell, we?ll all just have to wait until Rahm writes the book and sit on our hands until then. Yet it isn?t clear that voters will actually reward a party that has abdicated its responsibility to the republic to be a courageous opposition party these last three years simply because they are Democrats. The Democratic leadership is almost as complicit in what has befallen this country these last five years as are George W. Bush and the GOP. And because of that, there is no guarantee that voters will put Democrats into power in November, nor is there any certainty that Bush and the GOP will not succeed again in doctoring up another war based on lies against Iran in time for the midterm elections, despite the opportunity Democrats have to reframe the Iran opportunity differently.

And if that happens, Reid and Pelosi can take credit for one thing: the demise of the Democratic Party and the birth of a new opposition party from the center-left in this country, one that I would be happy to work the next several decades in constructing: the Liberal Party, a party freed of Beltway money and corruption, and a party of principles at home and abroad that will hold the Beltway accountable both in government and the media while laying out a positive agenda of reform and change that puts Main Street above Wall Street. At least Reid and Pelosi could take credit for that.

Look, the GOP is on the ropes, and can't even figure out their own message for this year. Yet the only folks who don?t see that seem to be Reid and Pelosi. If they don?t want to go for the kill and show voters a Democratic alternative now, then step aside and let some new faces do it.

 

[smurphy]

Army Embraces Iraq-Vietnam Analogy
In April 2004, President Bush rejected analogies between Iraq and Vietnam, saying such a comparison ?sends the wrong message to our troops?:

QUESTION: What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

But the Wall Street Journal reports today that America?s military commanders are looking to Vietnam for lessons on how to deal with violence in Iraq:

The last time Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Baghdad, back in December, the top U.S. military commander there gave him an unusual gift.

Gen. George Casey passed him a copy of ?Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam,? written by Lt. Col. John Nagl. Initially published in 2002, the book is brutal in its criticism of the Vietnam-era Army as an organization that failed to learn from its mistakes and tried vainly to fight guerrilla insurgents the same way it fought World War II. [?]

Col. Nagl?s book is one of a half dozen Vietnam histories ? most of them highly critical of the U.S. military in Vietnam ? that are changing the military?s views on how to fight guerrilla wars. [?]

The embrace of these Vietnam histories reflects an emerging consensus in the Army that in order to move forward in Iraq, it must better understand the mistakes of Vietnam.

Rumsfeld should read Col. Nagl?s book carefully. Maybe then he?d stop making false comparisons between Iraq and post-WWII Germany.

How can Bush or Cheney even comment on Vietnam, given their disgraceful absence from legitimate service at the time. I have a very strong feeling that if our leadership had in fact ever seen battle then they would not be so quick to be chickenhawks and dismiss very reasonable Vietnam comparisons.

As for WW2, it's outrageous to go there at all. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. SO, OK why don't they ask us to conserve, buy war bonds, and why aren't people from every level of our society in the fight? Why are they running this WW2-like war on the side, rather than getting us all involved and asking us to make sacrifices such as conserving fuel and resources.

More and more, this looks like a corporate war. The military is being used like cheap hooker for the betterment of very few, while the populous gets told a series of justifications with less and less validity.

Deception or incompetence? Probably a healthy mixture of each.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"How can Bush or Cheney even comment on Vietnam"

I can and as I showed previously the casualties were down 90% when we pulled out--

---THE ONLY reason we did not win was 100% on the press and those with similiar attitudes at those times as now in this thread.
Sad that those that don't and in many cases would never participate in the war--try and dictate the outcome.
Only diff back then it was magnified by the college crowd who with the draft thought dissing the war would give them an excuse over being scared shitless they might have to serve.

and on your signature with Murtha,MC you might find this article from cns news interesting--not saying I agree with dissing a 20 year vet but would be curious if article is correct---
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200601\SPE20060113a.html

in addition I think the "open letter" enclosed in article is quite interesting--especially in light ofwho it came from---
May 5, 2002

Dear Jack,



I?m writing on matters of joint concern. A number of weeks ago I was talking with someone who is a mutual acquaintance and your name came up. It was an unusually frank discussion and I considered it private. I did relate some opinions about you and shared some recollections about experiences with you in Congress. I was, to be honest, critical about how you misled me about ABSCAM where you convinced me you had voluntarily told federal agents about the offer of money to you and I learned later, after I had successfully defeated the ethics charges against you, that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution.



I also shared my recollection of when you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn?t earn your purple hearts (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn?t even directly related to an APC that ran over a small anti personnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart you even declined to explain.



At the time you were feeling particularly vulnerable, because it wasn?t too long after you had called me crying and sobbing, thanking me for ?saving your life? before the ethics committee. There was no doubt in my mind that you were expressing to me that you did not believe you did anything sufficient to earn the purple heart, and that you didn?t want to be active in my efforts to laud Vietnam Veterans that served with us.



Given what I know about the brave men who served in the Marine Corp., I did not criticize you, but to be honest, I was shocked and disappointed in you personally. We both knew what was at issue, and we both know what happened and that you wanted to avoid the limelight. Later, we ended up having to run for the same seat. It was a good clean race and I admit I knew I couldn?t win, simply on the basis of voter turn out alone. During that time some people came to me with documents indicating you had used influence, after the fact, or had embellished your purple heart awards. I did not respond, and I said nothing. In doing so I may have betrayed my comrades in arms because I knew then what you had told me in the corner of the house - but I had told no one about that and I stood mute. But a few weeks ago my conversation was private and I was not seeking to do you any harm, though it would be ridiculous for me to infer that I have any respect for what you?ve done.



Regardless, shortly thereafter a reporter called me and I was put in a very different position. I could either deny what I said in private conversation, and thus lie, or I could fess up to the truth, or, I could take the cowards way out and stand mute. If I say something, I should either have the courage to back it up, or I shouldn?t open my mouth. Regardless it was too late, and I did not choose to lie. So I admitted to what I had said. However, I later received two calls from two different aides of yours, and later I was called a liar in the press. I am not a liar and I want an apology for the remarks you authorized that I didn?t tell the truth about our conversation. I don?t know how you got yourself awarded the purple hearts, but I know you indicated you didn?t earn them.



By the way. I?m not an ingrate. I deeply appreciate the help you gave me for the last governor?s primary. In fact, out of respect for you, when I realized that the race was going no where, I didn?t even cash the check you sent, (which I kept). Being grateful for your help, I have not sought to hurt you - but I will not betray or exploit the young men who died while fighting, with me, for this country. Never coming forward is one thing - I never have. Lying is another. Coincidentally I just settled an 11-year old law suit with Barbara Hafer where she apologized in writing for campaign defamation and admitted that federal agents (Thornburgh?s political friends) lied to her. I will not accept your falsehoods now. Enough is enough.



You clearly indicated to me in a moment of weakness, that you hadn?t deserved the purple hearts and there was no confusion on that. You may deny that all you wish - but you and I know that that conversation took place. Please apologize now. You may fool a few reporters into believing that merely because you got some perfunctory paperwork made out by a friend, that that means you earned the purple hearts. But even if you were awarded the medals later, there should be affidavits from witnesses. These things should be easy to get - where are they? I bet they don?t exist Jack because you are the one who?s lying. Luckily there?s one easy way to settle all this. Call a press conference. Explain where you were and what you were doing when you got the purple hearts. Explain who was with you and treated your wounds, but most important Jack describe your wounds or the lack thereof, as you did for me, years ago. I am absolutely certain that you won?t do that - because, though you may have manipulated some paperwork that says you were awarded the medals (for political purposes) you can?t produce the witnesses or documents to show any wounds or circumstances under which they occurred.Unless the Marine Corps gives out medals for unsubstantiated non -combat related telltale scratches, procured for use in political campaign - then show me the money Jack - because there should at least be evidence by affidavit, or record of the scratches, that?s what getting a purple heart requires - show me.



You may be able to take advantage of a few Washington reporters who don?t have sufficient experience to understand - but you can?t fool combat veterans of the Vietnam war by hiding behind ?Unit? losses - we?re used to those stories. I have my orders describing my combat awards Jack - to back up my DD-214. Where?s your?s? And Jack - don?t ever call me a liar.

Sincerely,

Don Bailey



DB:Alb

cc: file

 

[smurphy]

Don't you think it's naive and rather incompetent of an administration to assume a pre-emptive war (like Vietnam and Iraq) is going to move ahead with little protest once the timetable, cost, and reasons end up being this far off? We are not a Spartan-type war society. We are supposed to fight only when absolutely necessary. This is why I've always felt Iraq was horrible strategy, but also feel we should have completely annihilated Afghanistan and not rested until Osama was captured or killed. It's all or nothing for me. Either don't fight or completely 100% destroy the enemy who very clearly attacked us first.

Perhaps you are right that Vietnam could have ended in victory. But I also know that you were quite familiar with the enemy. They had been a war culture for 30+ years. They were going to go until the bitter end, while for us the war was an unnecessary detached side show. A victory would still have been little more than pyrric. The tragedy was what we lost, not what we could have gained. It's much more the fault of the government that got us into it than the media that echoed the voices of those who wanted out.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"The tragedy was what we lost, not what we could have gained."

Believe it or not Smurph this is probably the most prophetic statement I have read for avoiding vietnam war--while some would argue it was to stop communism I am on your side 100% on reason NOT to go to war there--where we differ is after we committed. Once we got there and the south made their stand the north we should not have left till job was done--the slaughter that followed there andin cambodia was much greater than all during the war.--and we were so close to victory.I can't remember what his name was but was famous general from the north that wrote book describing how close the north was to throwing in the towell after our cambodia assualt. I will see if I can find it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The general is Vo Nguyen Giap who was head of his army--in his book he told that he lacked one thing after U.S. entered that was his biggest asset against french and that was unlimited time.
Reason was U.S. was training and equiping south and at some point they would be able to support themselves--his recourse was use tet offensives where despite the slaughter of 45,000 he hoped it would lead to public opinion in U.S. against war--you might also note UBL uses this same anology and refers to viet nam as example in his writings. This is intersting read on general--
http://www.vwam.com/vets/tet/tet.html

With the Vietcong wiped out in the Tet offensive, North Vietnamese regulars moved south down the Ho Chi Minh trails through Laos and Cambodia to continue the war. Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

Hanoi's Easter offensive in March 1972 was another disaster for the communists. Some 70,000 North Vietnamese troops were wiped out -- by the South Vietnamese who did all the fighting. The last American soldier left Vietnam in March 1973. And the chances of the South Vietnamese army being able to hack it on its own were reasonably good. With one proviso: Continued U.S. military assistance with weapons and hardware, including helicopters. But Congress balked, first by cutting off military assistance to Cambodia, which enabled Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge communists to take over, which, in turn, was followed by a similar Congressional rug pulling from under the South Vietnamese, that led to rapid collapse of morale in Saigon.

The unraveling, with Congress pulling the string, was so rapid that even Giap was caught by surprise. As he recounts in his memoirs, Hanoi had to improvise a general offensive -- and then rolled into Saigon two years before they had reckoned it might become possible.

Note: Part about his saying anything about conditional surrender is very debatable--I have read lots on this trying to find answer and I would say that statement to be incorrect--because have not seen supposed quote from memoirs in context and common sense would lead me to believe why would anyone who won ever admit to contemplating failure.

 

[smurphy]

I guess this is a good example of why our current administration should have studied the Vietnam War. I firmly believe that we as a country will not support a pre-emptive war for a very long time. Meanwhile the enemy (in both cases) are willing to go all out. It's part of strategy, and bad strategy for us to ignore.

I definitely appreciate your view of how we let down South Vietnamese and Cambodians by eventually running. This is consistent with your criticism of Bush Sr. for letting down the Shiites who were ready to use our help to topple Saddam.

Knowing that the public will not support a protracted pre-emptive war plus the fact that surrendering the place we invaded too soon leaves our allies high and dry for slaughter should be things our leaders consider before putting the military in these situations.