Monthly Archives: March 2007

Iraq, Political wind

Washington Post slams House mandating Iraq withdrawal

by  • 

Today, the editors at the Washington Post slammed the measure before the House of Representatives that would mandate a timetable for withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. When you remove their criticism of the $20 billion in pork spending from their editorial entitled “Retreat and Butter: Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?” here is what the editors said:

TODAY THE House of Representatives … will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq… The legislation… could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements — and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate’s version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates… while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek… an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

In other words, the Washington Post does not think Congress should mandate that we “PULL… OUT… NOW” from Iraq. And they think withdrawal should be based upon the best estimate of those leading the fight on the ground and what is best for the Iraqi people. Medea Benjamin will be disappointed.

Congressman John Murtha standing with Code Pinkers

It will be interesting to see how Congressman John Murtha votes seeing how he so often claims to defer to the opinions of the military commanders in the field.

6 imams, American jihad, Aviation Security, CAIR

Lawyers, Muslim group will defend “John Does”

by  • 

Muslims offer to help ‘John Does’ sued by imams

Lawyers and a Muslim group say they will defend at no cost airline passengers caught up in a lawsuit between a group of imams and U.S. Airways if the passengers are named as “John Does” and sued for reporting suspicious behavior that got the Muslim clerics booted from a November flight. The six imams are suing the airline, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the unnamed “John Does” to be named later, for discrimination, saying they were removed from the flight for praying in the airport.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy — a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org) — told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams. “It’s so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel,” said Dr. Jasser. “But I hope it doesn’t get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears.”
…
Gerry Nolting, whose Minnesota law firm Faegre & Benson LLP is offering to represent passengers for free, says the judicial system is being “used for intimidation purposes” and that it is “just flat wrong and needs to be strongly, strongly discouraged.” “As a matter of public policy, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] presently tells traveling passengers to report suspicious behavior as part of its homeland security program,” Mr. Nolting said. “This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but trying to intimidate and discourage reporting of suspicious behavior and [also discourage] the promotion of safe travel.”

While noble, leaving defense funds and pro bono lawyers to stand alone against the intimidation tactics of CAIR will only ‘lawyer up’ our airline and national security. What about the dockworker who spots a suspicious container? What about the elderly lady on the train who sees an unattended briefcase? And what about the young couple with a newborn and a neighbor with a license to haul hazardous materials who they hear say, “they ought to blow up DC?”

We need to start by protecting the millions of passengers who fly each day, those who report suspicious activity, and our first responders in the air, the flight crews. Federal law should be enacted that says if someone, acting in good faith, reports or acts upon reports of suspicious behavior or items in airports or aboard a plane, they are not subject to civil liability.

Thousands of lawyers will scream ‘bloody murder’ about such legislation yet thousands of people screamed for real while they were being murdered on 9/11.

Update, 8:40 EDT: Hot Air has more details and video of Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser talking about this today.