Sen. Reid and his memory hole

A famous guy once said, if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Normally, I would spend 20 minutes on google to find the famous guy and attribute the quote, but I'm pushing the latest time for an LLP'er to be publishing, which is saying something considering we have Perry in our group. Anyway, the topic of my somewhat inarticulate rant tonight was inspired by the President's address to the nation tonight.

First, let me just say that it disgusts me that our President had to go on national TV to basically say, "hey, nation, you know, if we withdraw from Iraq now, before the mission is complete, we'll have basically accomplished nothing." Is our populace really that dumb, that sheeplike, that uninformed that we honestly think that cutting and running is a legitimate strategy? Obviously, based on the reception that Rep. Murtha's remarks got, it would seem that we are. And that's incredibly sad.

So, on to Senator Reid and his memory hole. In this news story on Bush's speech, Sen. Reid is quoted as saying that "The people on the ground said there is one (Iraqi Army) battalion that can fight alone."

Senator, that is a flat out lie. If you took the time to understand military terminology, (yes, I know its hard for you Senators to understand anything that doesn't have to do with getting votes, but bear with me...I know you have the attention span of a 5 year old, so I'll keep it short), but if you took the time to understand the military's reporting, you would know that there is only one IA battalion that is capable of operating completely independent of U.S. forces. Support, logistics, communications, command & control, everything. That is what "tier 1" means. "Tier 2," where most of the IA is, is the next level down, which means that Iraqi forces are in the lead, doing most of the fighting, but that they still depend on U.S. forces for support, for logistics, for some communications, and for coordination in the CP. It's commonly reported fact that in both this election, and in the last election, Iraqi forces provided the security at polling places, with U.S. forces remaining inside the wire to help coordinate and act as a QRF in case any really bad stuff went down.

Now, how were they able to do that if "only one Iraqi battalion" can operate on its own?

Quit lying, Senator. You can try and get the country to accept it as fact, but that simply will not fly anymore. You might have the media on your side, but we have something much bigger. Ask Dan Rather about it.

Oh, and Senator? You seem a little confused as to what "victory" means. Victory is when the Iraqi government is fully up and running, when Iraq is a functioning democracy. That's when victory is achieved, and, as long as we retain the Iraqi government's welcome, we'll stay up until that point.

The War

This isn't a post about the War in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or on Terror, or against Islamic Extremism. No, this is a post on the ridiculous, idiotic, and increasingly authoritarian war on drugs we are waging in this country. I don't have time to go into detail now, but go over to Radley Balko's place and just start scrolling. The upshot of the case is that an innocent man is sentenced to die in Mississippi as a result of his actions during a drug raid. Cory Maye is on death row because he acted in self defense after a police officer broke through his door while executing a no knock raid on his neighbor (Cory lives in a duplex). Cory reacted to the unidentified individual breaking down his door by shooting at the individual. The individual turned out to be an officer, the son of the sheriff. Cory was convicted of murder. Here's Balko's original summary of the case, but there's a lot more, including a disturbing conversation with the county court clerk, and his correspondence with the DA who prosecuted the case. (h/t to Instapundit for the story).

Oh, and if you think the war on drugs hasn't gone too far, check out this story.

Federal agents looking like storm-troopers on a drug raid toting weapons that citizens aren't allowed to own? Check.

Said agents storming a public place with nary a warning? Check.

Federal agents not telling any local officials about the raid? Check.

Chances for disaster? You be the judge.

h/t to Balko for both stories.

Amusing Democratic Quote

Sorry again about the lack of posting...college, ROTC, finals, blah blah blah. Anyway, this won't be much, but I found a very, ahem, "interesting" quote from the gentleman from Illinois, Sen. Obama. He was giving the keynote address at a Democratic function in Florida for possible presidential candidates. It was actually rather nice and unusual that the AP writer included it in the story, because it really cuts to the core of what the statists in the Democratic Party want for America. Without further ado, here's the quote.

"Spellbound delegates heard him criticize GOP plans to give people more control over their retirement plans, their choice of schools and their health care savings.

Equating the GOP agenda for Social Security, public school vouchers and Medicare with 'social Darwinism,' Obama said the key to the nation's success is striking a balance between individual and collective responsibility.

'It has to do with individuals,' he said, 'but it also has to do with community."

Let me say that for you again: He criticized "GOP plans to give people MORE CONTROL over THEIR retirement plans, THEIR choice of schools, and THEIR health care savings."

Its a sad commentary on our times that very few in this country will have a problem with what the Senator said, never mind that it is the very antithesis of what this country was founded upon; that is to say, the INDIVIDUAL. Democrats as the party of the minority? My ass. The individual is the smallest minority, and the Democrats obviously don't care about me, as me. Nope, I only matter if I've been forced to give up my life to a faceless bureaucrat who knows better for me than I do. Think that phrase is just a cliche? Not according to Obama.

Oh, and if that wasn't enough for you, check out what Senator Edwards wanted to do following 9/11. Fight the terrorists? No. End dependence on foreign oil? No. Change U.S. foreign policy? No. He wanted to rally the nation behind the cause of "fighting poverty."

Yep, that worked out real well for LBJ.

And this man could've been number 2 in the White House.

If anyone is interested, here's a link to the AP article (sorry, it's a Yahoo news article, so it may change).