Petraeus to Congress: the surge is working

... exactly what the Democrats feared... WaPo - Army Gen. David H. Petraeus told Congress yesterday that the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Iraq has made enough progress that the additional combat forces can be pulled out by next summer, but he cautioned against "rushing to failure" with a larger and speedier withdrawal. In what some called the most anticipated congressional testimony by a general since the Vietnam War, Petraeus presented an upbeat picture of improving security conditions in Iraq and offered a grim forecast of the "devastating consequences" of a more rapid pullout. Petraeus said his forces "have dealt significant blows" to al-Qaeda in Iraq but warned that Iran is now fighting a "proxy war" against Iraqi and U.S. forces there. The partial troop pullout Petraeus outlined in a joint appearance with Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker represents a modest acceleration of what military planners were privately forecasting but is the first drawdown the two men have publicly supported since becoming the top U.S. military and civilian officials in Baghdad. President Bush, in a televised national address later this week, is likely to adopt the recommendation for this rollback of his troop "surge," while war critics immediately condemned it as too little, too late. Of course the Dems didn't let a little good news prevent them from trying to discredit the General at every chance. They didn't debate his ideas or try to debunk his facts; they went after him. There is of course the Public Relations arm of the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org's full page ad in the NYTimes, "General Petraeus or General 'Betray Us'?". And don't think that it is simply a coincidence that this ran in the NYTimes either. Why would the NYTimes give MoveOn.org a 60% discount on the full page ad? A full page, nationwide ad space in the NYT normally goes for between $182K-$167K. MoveOn.org only paid $65K. Why the discount NYT? Is Soros running low on cash? Are the Dem's really that hard up for money now that Hillary gave back (some of) that money from her criminal supporter, Norman Hsu? You'd think that perhaps the Dems might try to get what they believe to be the real facts out of Petraeus. This is their chance! The man with the answers sitting right there in front of them! Clinton, Reid, Boxer, et al "know" that the war is a failure and this would be their chance to prove it! But instead of asking questions, they wasted their 8 minute window of opportunity to preach, bluster, and opine from their little soap boxes. That's what California's distinguished Senator Boxer did. So did Sen. Obama. Boxer's question speech was so long the General will have to reply via letter to it, which is exactly what they wanted. They get to talk uninterrupted and no one gets the chance to argue. Heaven forbid they actually have to deal with facts. But perhaps this apparent ineptitude in the face of the facts on the ground in Iraq could be why Rep. Pelosi accused this reporter of being biased when he asked how we could view her stewardship of Congress as anything other than a failure. She insinuated that surely he was a Fox News plant. But no, he's from CBS. His question has from so far to the left that it just must have seemed like the vast right wing conspiracy. Pelosi should know better though... The left relies on hatchet job reporting. The right simply tries to stay with the facts.

Terrorists are very appreciative of Pelosi's visit to Syria

And the terrorists hope that she'll continue to win elections. They came right out and said it... We want the Democrats to win. Palestinian terror group members call US House speaker's visit to Damascus 'brave' and hope for talks with Iran; ‘I think the Democratic Party can do things the best,’ Islamic Jihad member says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria Wednesday – in which she called for dialogue with Damascus – was "brave" and "very appreciated" and could bring about "important changes" to America's foreign policy, including talks with "Middle East resistance groups," according to members of Palestinian terror organizations whose top leaders live in Syria. One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East. Pelosi's visit was opposed by President Bush, who called Syria a "state sponsor of terror." "Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections." Terrorists say, Pelosi understands us and if Democrats continue to win they will legitimize terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah by involving us in international discourses and summits. In light of that, we ought to rename our esteemed speaker of the house Damascus Nancy (a la Hanoi Jane). Or perhaps Hezbollah Nancy? Hamas Nancy? Which one do you think sounds better?

Pelosi passes on Alcee Hastings for House Intelligence Committee chair spot

Even the best predictions can be wrong... Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, preparing her party to take control of the House from President George W. Bush's Republicans when the 110th U.S. Congress convenes on January 4, told Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, of her decision during a closed-door meeting. "I advised him that I would select someone else as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee," Pelosi said. Aides said Pelosi has yet to pick anyone else for the job. Perhaps avoiding the candidate who was one of only six federal judges in American history to be impeached for taking bribes was the smart move... Pelosi may not have picked anyone yet, but here's the speculated short list... Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes of Texas and Rush Holt of New Jersey (both members of the Intelligence Committee) and Norman Dicks of Washington state, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. Jane Harman is the current ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, but she's the dark horse here because she and Pelosi aren't on the best of terms, she's a fan of Israel, and generally doesn't appear to be liberal enough...

So who's going to run the House Committees for the Democrats?

Yesterday I mentioned Conyers taking control of the Judiciary Committee and Rangel over at Ways & Means and what that moght entail. But those aren't the only committees in the House. Here's an indispensible article by Patrick Poole, cited by Dennis today, that gives you a little more background into the likely new House Committee Chairs. You have to read the whole thing, but I'll give you some of the highlights. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Pelosi is likely to pick her friend Hastings over ranking current Democrat on the committee, Jane Harman. Hastings was one of six federal judges in American history impeached when she was caught taking a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient exchange. Oh and Harman's been taking flak from her own party for being too pro-Israel. Committee on Appropriations – David Obey (WI-7) Obey has openly vowed to battle our country's biggest national security threat, global warming and would love make individual contributions to a political candidate a federal crime. Committee on Armed Services – Ike Skelton (MO-4) Skelton is mentioned as one of the "more sensible" Democrats in Congress, but has lately fallen into the John Kerry approach to the war in Iraq. He was for the war before he was against the war. Or is it the other way around? I can never keep track. Skelton's also been hanging around with and approving of Murtha's cut and run Iraq policy. Committee on the Budget – John Spratt (SC-5) The National Taxpayer's Union gave Spratt an "F" grade last year as one of the biggest spenders in Congress. However, he will be up for re-election in '08 in a district that voted overwhelmingly for Bush in '04, so he might try to bump that "F" up to a "C" to appeal to his constituents. Committee on Energy and Commerce – John Dingell (MI-15) Currently the longest serving member in the House, he's also had a longstanding plan to nationalize America's healthcare. Committee on Financial Services – Barney Frank (MA-4) Frank is infamous for being censured when it was discovered his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's home. He was also one of only 3 representatives to vote against the Fallen Heroes Act that prohibited protests in national cemeteries during soldiers' funerals. Committee on International Relations – Tom Lantos (CA-12) Openly pro-Israel, but also a member of faaaaaar-left group Progressive Caucus, founded by socialist Bernie Sanders and currently headed by Dennis Kucinich. Please go read the rest of Patrick Poole's article for all the links on each of the above Congressmen and women. In fact email it to all your friends.

Immediate election fallout: Rumsfeld resigns and stocks decline

Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense, and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over. Fox News talked a lot about this as a possibility last night, a change to give the impression that the President will be flexible in his approach to the war in Iraq instead of what appeared to be obstinant, "we move ahead as planned", and resistant to any change. Most of that is simply perception of course, not reality, but this is the olive branch to the American people who voted for change. I think the more interesting story is the stock market decline. Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Shares of health-insurance providers such as Humana Inc. and drugmakers including Pfizer Inc. fell after voters gave control of the U.S. House of Representatives to Democrats who've pledged to cut government health-care payments. Sounds good up front, but what it's saying is in an effort to cut costs the government is looking to stiff the pharmaceutical companies. [...] House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has vowed in the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress in January to seek votes allowing the federal government's Medicare program, the biggest U.S. buyer of health-care products and services, to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices. Democrats who oversee Medicare also have said they want to cut payments to health insurers that manage certain types of government plans. "It is going to give them a lot of leverage in dictating price rather than negotiating price, and that is the scariest thing coming out of this election," said Jack Lafferty, managing director at US Trust Co. in New York, in a telephone interview. The Medicare system is a mess to begin with, and I've maintained the first step in fixing the problem is actually tort reform. Make it a loser pays system; that helps lower doctors' malpractice rates; might makee medical insurance rates decline, and reduce legal costs for the drug companies constantly scared about created wonderful new drugs to save lives since there will be that one person out there that has a negative reaction and is hurt who will sue for a bazillion dollars. More profit for drug companies due to less legal overhead means more money for research into new therapies and lower prices on existing drugs. With Democrats taking control, don't expect to see any legal reforms whatsoever. Instead they'll try to strong arm the companies into submission undoing the Medicare privatization efforts Republicans had begun. It's a possiblity at this point. Hasn't actually happened. We'll have to wait and see... UPDATE @ 12:17pm: In from the Cold has a great post giving credit where credit is due with regards to Rumsfeld's tenure as SecDef. He's also got this blurb on the new choice Robert Gates. Regarding Mr. Gates, he is a good man but the wrong one for the job. He spent most of his professional life at the CIA before retiring and becoming the President of Texas A&M University. Robert Gates certainly knows the intelligence end of military affairs, but his expertise ends there. Moreover, his management skills as DCI weren't particularly impressive, and as an analyst, he was part of a CIA team that consistently got it wrong on their assessments of the former Soviet Union. Gates strikes me as a easy confirmation, someone with no ties to the current Pentagon regime. That's probably a necessity in today's political climate, but that doesn't make Mr. Gates the right choice for DoD. Reading through Gates' wikipedia page, he spent 2 years in the Air Force, and 26 in the CIA. He was involved in the Iran/Contra affair to a limited degree since he was never indicted for anything. Ought to make for an interesting confirmation hearing... UPDATE @ 2:52pm: BlackFive is not particularly thrilled with Rummy's resignation and he certainly doesn't mince words. During a mid-term election that turned into a referendum on W's leadership overall, and in Iraq especially, he stands tall and says Rumsfeld will stay out the rest of his presidency. Knowing full well that this will alienate some of the moderate Dems and Repubs who support the war on terror, but wonder about Rumsfeld's prosecution of it. So these folks decide enough is enough and take their frustration to the only place they can voice it, voting the bums who support Bush out and a Dem majority in. Now both Houses of Congress will be run by a party that burns with hate from having 2 elections stolen. [...] If this was a possibility then it should have happened before the election and would probably have shown the folks who voted against staying the course that he was making important changes. Instead he ensures they believe the prevailing story that W and Rummy are not listening and have no plan and it cost dearly. Can't argue with his logic... How many votes would have swayed if this had happened before the election? Gates has said he was contacted about possibly returning to the government's service as SecDef a month or so ago. What might have been... If nothing else check out BlackFive's post, Rumsfeld's 6 years: a pictorial... It's classic...

This is not what I wanted to see when I woke up this morning...

Ugh... I need some coffee... It's going to be a long two years. Don't expect to hear any whining here though. None of that "if Dems win I'm moving to Canada" crap. Not here. But America voted, turned out in record numbers in fact. And there was angry streak in some Republicans looking to send a message to what they perceived as a Republican govenrment that had strayed from its core values: fiscal responsibility, border security, small government, and family values. Turns out that faction got what it wanted. Lots of Republican representatives are cleaning out their DC offices for new Democrats to take over. The message has been sent; hopefully it motivates Republicans still in office to get their priorities straight. We controlled the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years but couldn't manage to get a fence across the entire Mexican border, we continue to waste money on huge social programs like prescription drugs and education, the government bureaucracy is larger than ever, and scandals were an anchor around several Republicans trying to replace their corrupt predecessors. In the mean time however, we've got Speaker Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco liberal), Judiciary Chair John Conyers (openly for impeaching Bush), and Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel (education and employment are the government's job). So look for the silver lining... Blogs sure aren't going to have a shortage of material with Dems taking over the House. Maybe we can show the country exactly what their priorities are. Still... Speaker Pelosi? (shudder)