Spank That Donkey

(Click on Hussein & Friends)

 Apparently no matter what happens, somewhere, somehow a Virginian Democratic Politician is in the mix for the 2008 Presidential Bid?

Hey I lifted this photo off the Observer, are they going to sue me too?  This blog costs me $12 a month to publish, not including the labor costs.  My thoughts are to send the bill to anyone whom I have linked too and in so doing promoted.  The thought here being that I am providing 'click throughs' to said newspaper, and I am not being compensated for doing so.

That is flat out wrong.  Bloggers should be compensated for directing any of our readers attention to publications that otherwise our readers might not have visited without their attention being brought to it.  I hope Snapped Shot can counter sue the AP. 

 Why isn't the MSM screaming this story, "Islamic Iraqi Party: Al Quaeda is Defeated"  above the fold, or anywhere at all?

Where are our DemocRAT Leaders to proclaim that the "Surge" is a failure? (crickets chirping)

When does the panic mode set in that they will have lost their 'Vital' issue for holding onto Congress and taking back the White House in 2008?  Dem bumper sticker idea: "Proud to be Cut N Run".

Consider bookmarking Michael Yon, and take some time for some really interesting reading on the situation in Iraq.  It's pretty eye opening stuff.

Art work by Eric Allie, (what a Conservative Editorial Cartoonist?)

 The Carrier Enterprise will be in the Persian Gulf shortly bringing our total of carriers there to three.  President Bush will have more options on the table for at least a couple weeks before one of the carriers returns home from deployment.

Recently Iran has seen riots in the streets as the inept government is literally rationing gasoline in a country sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world.  This is a nation that is causing major unrest in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories and the rest of the Arabs in the Middle East would like to see them gone also. The timing may not be any better...

Then you have the strategically challenged Sen. Jim Webb, and his foreign policy micro managing SB 759.  What if our President had all the players lined up behind the scenes, but if he had to go to Congress it would compromise an operation to fell the Iranian Regime, and SB759 were the law?

Think about how successful the CIA and our special Ops. took out the Taliban govt. in of all places Afghanistan.   We should never tie a President's hands when it comes to defending this nation's interests. 

 Did I miss this back in March?  Senator Webb would like to take all military options off the table when it comes to Iran...unless debated by our 'windbags' in DC, by introducing SB 759.  The Bill text here.

A lefty Bob Geiger gives us this take on Webb's attempt to allow Congress to micro manage our foreign policy, which of course is delegated to the President:

"Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place," said Webb, a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran. "The administration's past failure to engage with Iran diplomatically in a meaningful way, coupled with what Iran could perceive as preparations for a military strike, creates a potent brew that easily could lead to miscalculation on both sides."

 Notice how he has to throw in Webb is a Vietnam Vet, which means he has the 'right' to speak to the issue, as opposed to say Speaker Pelosi's foreign policy junket to another hostile nation, Syria, defended here by Jimmy Carter.

Now Webb does justify his position by using some Constitutional context according to Geiger:

The scholarly Webb went on to give a brief lecture on the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the extent to which delegates carefully decided that no President should be given the power to decide with whom America should go to war or to undertake aggressive actions without the consent of Congress.

"The President's powers to initiate military action were to be for the purpose of repelling sudden attacks -- and this is the language I have used in this legislation," said Webb.

That is a great place to start the debate, but also remember that the Constitution gave the President the Powers of Commander and Chief, which Teddy Roosevelt, (a President who has made his way around the VA blogosphere as of late), used during the 'Venezuela Affair'.  Teddy Roosevelt was confronted with a situation involving two foreign powers Germany and England looking to collect on some debt, and ostensibly use it as an excuse to gain a foothold in the America's.  Roosevelt even went so far as to publish his own revision to the Monroe Doctrine for good measure..

You see Roosevelt, as President was privy to information and direct negotiations with foreign powers and had to act to protect our National Interests, he didn't have time to 'dilly dally' with the 535 would-be Presidents in our House and Senate, he needed to act! Read over the above linked article on the Venezuela crisis, the diplomacy and T.R.'s reaction to the events are fascinating in deed...

Our President's hands should never be tied in such a manner, less it embolden our enemies.  The last time Congress forbade a President from giving any Military aid or take military action against a nation, our former ally South Vietnam, lost it's sovereignty, and millions of persons vanquished by the communists... That was the Case - Church Amendment in 1973.  South Vietnam fell in 1975.  See an excellent time line here, look for June 19, 1973.

This time we face the Islamo-fascists, who know a thing or two about taking over territory and putting their enemies to the sword.