From Bill Kristol in The New York Times on how a certain candidate for the presidency who had to suspend disbelief to believe General David Petraeus is claiming some success for the improving situation in Iraq:
Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of … George W. Bush. The horror!
The editors of the National Review (admittedly, a publication with a conservative outlook) take the Pelosi-led Congress to task.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid return to work this week. But the Congress they lead is already a failure, no matter what they now do.
When they took power, they had three major goals: to end the war in Iraq, cripple this presidency, and pave the way for a Democratic sweep next year. They have failed in all three respects.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called “point system” that would for the first time prioritize immigrants’ education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
(snip)
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called “triggers” had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
Under the proposal, the government would evaluate the qualifications and claims of many people seeking permission to immigrate using a point system.
Family ties would remain an important factor, but would have less weight than they do under current law.
The point system is one element of a comprehensive bill that calls for the biggest changes in immigration law and policy in more than 20 years. The full Senate plans to take up the legislation next week.
Although Democrats now control the Senate, the bill incorporates many ideas advanced in some form by President Bush. A draft of the legislation says that Congress intends to “increase American competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for immigrants.”
Moreover, it says, Congress will “reduce chain migration” by limiting the number of visas issued exclusively on account of kinship.
The Senate is getting playful with a bill which would spend $14 billion on important national water projects. The playfulness: two Iraq troop-withdrawal amendments.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada co-sponsored both amendments with fellow Democrats; one with Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin that would restrict war funds to noncombat operations, and the other with Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan that would pull out troops if the Iraqi government does not meet policy benchmarks.
Instead of playing around with a water bill, why not just offer up the legislation straight up? I would think something that important deserves a focussed debate and up-and-down vote.
An editorial from today’s NY Post on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his recent statements/efforts on the War.
To be sure, Reid won’t risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party’s bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite “the restlessness” of those who “voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January.”
The problem, said Reid, is that “George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war.”
And there’s the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.
They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America’s enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.
Not to be outdone by the pork in the House Iraq Supplemental, the Senate shows how the upper house can get down on the porcine bandwagon - including 2K8 Convention Money.
“Congress will have to make the choice between booze and balloons or bullets and body armor,” John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told The Examiner on Monday. Coburn and a handful of other senators hope to shame their colleagues into stripping the pork out of the war spending bill.
