Petraeus: Iran Involved In Kidnapping of British Citizen

I noticed the story of a British IT consultant who had been kidnapped in Iraq while working there and was released yesterday and waited to see what sort of ransom had been paid to secure his release. Well now we know the answer.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office sources confirmed, however, that the transfer from US custody a few days ago of Qais al-Khazali, a cleric and commander of AAH, helped to pave the way for Mr Moore’s release. They also admitted that British diplomats had been pressing the US to hand over al-Khazali to the Iraqi administration.

The insurgent leader, who is suspected of helping to plan an attack that killed five US servicemen in Karbala in 2007, is expected to be released as part of reconciliation talks between the Iraqi Government and extremist groups.

Mr. Moore was kidnapped along with four British security personnel. Three of them have been killed, and the fourth is also suspected of being killed. This is the Muslim version of negotiating in "good faith."

When Laith al-Khazali, a brother of Qais al-Khazali, was released in June, the remains of Jason Creswell, 39, and Jason Swindlehurst, 38, were surrendered. Inquests were told that each died from a gunshot wound to the head. The body of Alec MacLachlan, 30, was handed over in September.

Probably the most shocking part of the saga however is the assertion by Gen Petreaus that Mr Moore was kidnapped by Iranian led and trained henchmen and may have indeed been held in Iran for some of his 31 months in captivity.

Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, said that at a conference in Bahrain on December 13 he had asked General Petraeus whether Mr Moore was moved to Iran.

Mr Gardner told Radio 4’s Today programme this morning: “He didn’t hesitate. He said ‘I’m absolutely certain. I’m 90 per cent certain.’

“I said: ‘Is this a personal view or have you seen hard intelligence?’, and he thought for a minute and he said ’I am pretty sure I’ve seen hard intelligence on it’ ... that they were held in Iran for some of the period of their captivity.”

So we hand over a terrorist who was already suspected of having a hand in the killing of five U.S. service members, the captors killed three, and probably four of the other people they kidnapped and we get one British hostage back in exchange.

I tell you what, if we get slapped upside the head by that Iranian unclenched fist anymore, I just might begin to think that this whole make nice policy won't work.

Asked to comment on the general's assertion, Barry O responded with "Fore!"

With Hush Rush Strategy Exhausted, Who's the Next Target of the Obama Smear Machine?

Looks like the White House has begun to back off the daily trashing of Rush Limbaugh. I question the timing. Seems to come right on the heels of all those reports showing Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of George W. Bush failing as president.

What, can't handle a little blowback, kids?

Beginning Sunday, the White House will harness every part of the Democratic Party’s machinery to defend President Obama’s budget and portray Republicans as reflexively political, according to party strategists.

A participant in the planning meetings described the push as a successor to Democrats’ message that Rush Limbaugh is the Republican Party leader. “We have exhausted the use of Rush as an attention-getter,” the official said.

David Plouffe, manager of Obama’s presidential race, helped design the strategy, which includes the most extensive activation since November of the campaign’s grassroots network. The database—which includes information for at least 10 million donors, supporters and volunteers—will now be used as a unique tool for governing, with former canvassers now being enlisted to mobilize support for the president’s legislative agenda.

Others involved in the planning included White House senior adviser David Axelrod; the DNC chairman, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine; and DNC Executive Director Jennifer O'Malley Dillon.

So, who's next on Obama's hit list?

Well, could David Petraeus be the next victim? It wouldn't take much for the left to simply dust off all their hit pieces from 2007, especially those character assassins at the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org. Consider this:

Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

Previously, it has been thought that Petraeus would not run against a president who had been his Commander in Chief. But there are reports of tension between Petraeus and Obama over both Iraq and Afghan strategy.

Very little is known about Petraues’s politics and no one knows how he would make the transition from soldier to politician. But if he did enter the race, it would shake things up dramatically. He would instantly become a top tier candidate and the most serious threat to Obama's chances of winning a second term.

It may be difficult trashing a military hero, but if they discover Petraeus is a solid conservative, they can just go to one of the media's favorite Republicans to do the dirty work.

Thanks to Jules Crittenden for the link.

Update: Oh, that Petraeus thing? All a joke, of course.

* This was meant as joke, though obviously it fell a little flat. Petraeus has no plans to go to Iowa that I'm aware, this year or next. I regret the confusion that has resulted from my clumsy attempt at humor.

Fucking hilarious.

U.S. To 'Talk' to Taliban?

Frankly, I can't see much being accomplished talking with these monsters. Seriously, how can they be trusted in any way?

Still, it appears there is high-level consideration here.

The U.S. is actively considering talks with elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.

Senior White House and military officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban -- while excluding top leaders -- could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Both countries have been destabilized by a recent wave of violence.

The outreach is a draft recommendation in a classified White House assessment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, according to senior Bush administration officials. The officials said that the recommendation calls for the talks to be led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the U.S.

The idea is supported by Gen. David Petraeus, who will assume responsibility this week for U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gen. Petraeus used a similar approach in Iraq, where a U.S. push to enlist Sunni tribes in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq helped sharply reduce the country's violence. Gen. Petraeus earlier this month publicly endorsed talks with less extreme Taliban elements.

The final White House recommendations, which could differ from the draft, are not expected until after next month's elections. The next administration wouldn't be compelled to implement them. But the support of Gen. Petraeus, the highly regarded incoming head of the U.S. Central Command, could help ensure that the policy is put in place regardless of who wins next month's elections.

The proposed policy appears to strike rare common ground with both presidential candidates. Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said he thinks talks with the Taliban should be considered and has advocated shifting more military forces to Afghanistan. Republican contender Sen. John McCain supports, as part of his strategy, reaching out to tribal leaders in an effort to separate "the reconcilable elements of the insurgency from the irreconcilable elements of the insurgency," Randy Scheunemann, the campaign's top foreign-policy adviser, said Monday.

Simply put, the Taliban cannot be trusted b any means and any negotiation will them will be considered a victory for them and humiliating defeat for the United States. This is an absolute no-win situation.

I never thought I'd see myself in agreement with Barack Obama, among others, but considering how stabilized the situation is in Iraq, perhaps it's time for a massive redeployment of forces to Afghanistan to finish off the job there.

Meanwhile, U.S. forces reportedly killed a dozen of these mutants today after a Black Hawk was forced to land.

Petraeus on McCain Short List?

Take these Vice Presidential guessing games however you want, but there's one very interesting name being floated.

Also curious is how John McCain is playing it coy as to when he'll actually announce it. Will he try and upstage The Messiah's Mile High coronation?

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain may announce his choice for a running mate earlier than expected, sources told FOX News on Monday.

McCain had previously said he would announce his vice presidential pick on Friday and would appear with that individual at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, following the announcement. Friday is McCain’s 72nd birthday.

But sources close to McCain’s campaign told FOX News that his decision may come sooner than that — possibly on Thursday, when Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination at Invesco field in Denver, Colo.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds diminished the news.

“I wouldn’t much weight into reports that there are windows of possibility,” he said.

Several names have come up repeatedly as McCain’s possible running mate, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge and, perhaps, Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Also named is Gen. David Petraeus, the incoming head of Central Command.

Seems the left is preemptively trying to sow a little discord between Petraeus and McCain, which is pretty laughable considering their scurrilous attack on Petraeus last year with the infamous General Betray Us ad that blew up in their faces.

2007 Man of the Year

This one's a no-brainer, although the establishment media refuses to acknowledge it, with one notable exception.

Ralph Peters talks with General David Petraeus.

GEN. David Petraeus evokes the late Warren Zevon's line, "I'll sleep when I'm dead": His idea of downtime on Christmas Day was to answer a series of questions from The Post - after spending 11 hours out visiting our troops.

Relentless in his pursuit of our enemies and tireless in his pursuit of enduring results for Iraq, Petraeus is on track to become America's most successful four-star general since 1945.

Read the interview.

Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit tracks the numbers for 2007, and December shows the fewest casualties, despite the media's relentless effort to portray things negatively.

As for loser of the year, we're keeping that choice local.

Well deserved.

UPDATE: Great piece from Ben Johnson on Petraeus at Front Page.

Undoubtedly, our “Man of the Year” award will come as little remittance for a man who has already received a “Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm.” History will award him greater honors than any of us can bestow. This presidential election will go a long way toward determining if the War on Terror is won or lost, specifically on the Iraq front. However, civilian leadership cannot create battlefield victories, nor diplomatic missions clear the war theatre of enemies. Only keen military strategists can do that. If America prevails in the War on Terror, much of the credit will go to General David H. Petraeus – a brilliant but simple man who simply did his duty.

(HT: ted at LGF).

43% Support Petraeus

Time for the cut-and-run Democrats to regroup.

43% Support Petraeus Recommendation, 38% Oppose

Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans favor the recommendation made by General David Petraeus to withdraw 30,000 soldiers from Iraq but leave 130,000 troops in place at least through the summer. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 38% are opposed and 19% are not sure.

The survey also found that Americans may have resigned themselves to the fact that U.S. troops are likely to remain in Iraq for a long time. Seventy-one percent (71%) say that it is somewhat or very likely that “a large number of U.S. soldiers will remain in Iraq five years from today.” That would mean a large troop presence in Iraq when the next President’s first term is drawing to a close.

Now after Democrats have spent the entire week slandering and questioning the integrity of Gen. Petraeus, what will their new strategy be?

Why, withdrawal, of course.

They never learn.

We'll consider the 43% a mandate, since back in 1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote and called it a Mandate for Change.

Petraeus 1, MoveOn 0

He's a class act, which can't be said of the goons from MoveOn.org.

Via Hot Air and RCP.

MoveOn: A New Low

Ralph Peters hammers the Stalinist, George Soros-funded thugs from MoveOn.org in today's New York Post.

These goons should forever be shunned, but the craven Democrats love their money too much.

Now that Mrs. Clinton is allegedly giving back the tainted Norman Hsu money, she needs to make up the shortfall.

Funny how she has an opinion on everything, but has remained silent on the slander against General Petraeus.

I'll take that as affirmation she agrees with them.

MOVEON.ORG's exploitation of the Internet misleads the public into thinking it's a breakthrough phenomenon. It isn't: Technology aside, MoveOn belongs to the first half of the 20th century, not to the 21st.

Pretending to represent grass-roots democracy, it is totalitarian in outlook and practice. Complete with on-line commissars to enforce party discipline, this neo-Stalinist group crushes dissent mercilessly.

Far from populist, MoveOn is elitist, made up of the same sort of pseudo-intellectual activists who "knew" that Bolshevism, Maoism or fascism was what was best for the common people.

And make no mistake, you are the common people these activists despise: In their lofty view, you're not qualified to choose presidents, senators or even alder-men. They mean to make your choices for you.

MoveOn has been a cancer within the Democratic Party for years now, and not one leading Dem has had the guts to recommend surgery. Indeed, Democrats are terrified of the group's much-exaggerated power - but, then, it's always been the illusion of power, the bravado, that put totalitarian minorities over the top.

Yesterday, MoveOn reached a new low. Unable to refute the changed facts on the ground in Iraq, the commissars questioned Gen. David Petraeus' personal integrity in a very expensive ad in The New York Times. (Nice "populism": an ad in a newspaper no working man or woman ever reads.)

In our democracy, it's fair to disagree with the general's analysis - hopefully, from an informed position. But attacking the man himself in a back-door bid to undercut his testimony is reminiscent of the Stalinist practices of the 1930s.

Gen. Petraeus is a thoroughly honorable man who has dedicated his life to protecting us. I feel particularly qualified to defend him - not only because I know him, but because he and I have disagreed ferociously on many issues in the past, in print and in public. But I never doubted his integrity. This is a man of whom every American, Democrat or Republican, should be proud.

And MoveOn's smear tactics should shame every conscientious American.

It's high time for the Democrats, who so love revisiting the McCarthy era and their myths of courageous resistance (in fact, it was a Pentagon lawyer, not a liberal pol, who stopped Tailgunner Joe), to stand up to this un-American tyranny of an intolerant minority.

Read the rest, but don't hold your breath waiting for the Democrats to denounce them.

They can't even stand up to a little puke like Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and are afraid to take questions from Brit Hume. What makes anyone think they'd shun their benefactors like Soros?

Far-Left Nuts Call Petraeus a Traitor

The Democrats seem willing to have a group of socialist nutcases carry their water for them, since they're too cowardly to say in public what they really believe.

MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

Memo to Democrats: Don't get your panties in a bunch when we justifiably question your patriotism.

If you don't denounce this scurrilous attack, then we can assume you agree with it.

Democrats Dismiss Petraeus Report

You can call him Dick

So you ask how they can dismiss the report before it's reported?

They're Democrats. They don't need to explain themselves.

As if you needed any confirmation they're working for defeat, look no further.

Of course, let's not question their patriotism; that hurts more than humiliating defeat.

Dems already dismissing Iraq war report

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

Wow, if only we were all blessed with such mindreading powers as Little Dick Durbin.

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

We see where this is going.

Forget all the improvements on the grounds, forget the reduced casualty rate, forget the fact we're killing Al Qaeda in large numbers.

The Democrats long ago made up their mind that sacrificing the best interests of the United States solely to gain more political power is their primary goal.

Yes, I do question their patriotism.

Battle in Iraq to Continue for Years

Those with very short attention spans and who frighten easily aren't going to like this news, but they should prepare for a long, difficult battle ahead in Iraq, political pressures be damned.

U.S. likely to fight insurgents for years

The fight against insurgents in Iraq is likely to continue several more years, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said yesterday.

"I think just about everybody out there recognizes that a situation like this -- with the many, many challenges that Iraq is contending with -- is not one that's going to be resolved in a year or even two years," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said on "Fox News Sunday." "And in fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years."

The general said he would be able to "provide a reasonable snapshot of the situation" by September and sounded a hopeful note that the "surge" of additional U.S. troops in Iraq would produce results.

"I think that there is a good prospect for progress in the months ahead that, hopefully, can be matched by progress in the political and economic arenas here in Iraq and, again, can give us hope for the way ahead," he said. He added that it was too early to tell whether the increased level of U.S. troops would need to be maintained into next year.

"We will provide some recommendations on the way ahead" by September, he said.

Several U.S. leaders have made the analogy in recent weeks to the continuing American military presence in South Korea, now more than a half-century after the Korean fighting ended in a cease-fire. Gen. Petraeus said that such a commitment would be for politicians to decide but that a long-term security arrangement is "probably a fairly realistic assessment" of what would be needed militarily.

The general's optimistic assessment in the short term was bolstered by Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, who said the situation there is "a mixed picture, but certainly not by any means a hopeless one" and cautioned against impatience.

Our enemies clearly understand the unwillingness of the left to do what's necessary in our fight against terrorists both inside and outside of Iraq, and are aided by a compliant media in distorting the reality of what we face. The Korean analogy, while an entirely different circumstance, is worth noting since many people with a lack of historical context fail to understand you cannot just pick up and leave a war zone and expect he enemy to lay down his arms and embrace democracy.

Life just isn't that simple.

Dingy Harry Calls General Pace Incompetent

This guy is a laugh riot. A man who is so inept he's unable to get anything passed in the Senate, a pathetic hack who is at a record low approval of 19% (that is not a typo), a simpering wimp beholden to far-left bloggers, is calling a fine military man incompetent.

That 19% approval may be looking pretty good after this story spreads.

Reid labels military leader 'incompetent'

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a , a comment that was never reported.

What does it tell you about the competence of a man who is beholden to a bunch of emotionally-stunted bloggers with bad attitudes.

How would it be reported if a Republican majority leaders couldn't make a decision with consulting conservative bloggers? The Washington press corps would eat him or her alive.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

This is but the latest example of how Reid, under pressure from liberal activists to do more to stop the war, is going on the attack against President Bush and his military leaders in anticipation of a September showdown to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, according to Democratic senators and aides.

Reid, who was bashed by Republicans for suggesting earlier this year that the Iraq war was "lost," is lashing out at top commanders while putting the finishing touches on a plan to
force a series of votes on Iraq designed exclusively to make Republicans up for reelection in 2008 go on record in favor of continuing an unpopular war.

Reid, the senators and aides said, does not expect any of the Iraq measures to pass but hopes the effort will drive a deep enough wedge between wavering Republicans and Bush that, by September, Republican senators will break with the president and help end the war.

In other words, it's all for show. Sure, the war is unpopular, but Reid is even more unpopular.

What he just refuses to acknowledge is that Americans do not want defeat as badly as he does. They want victory, as they know the consequences are far worse. They are upset with how things are going and want to see the enemy squashed.

There is a difference. Only Reid and the Kos Kids hate this country so much, the only victory they seek is political, the troops and commanders be damned.

More from AJ Strata, Captain Ed, Confederate Yankee, The Jawa Report, Power Line, Dean Barnett,Hot Air, Don Surber.

Cheney Visits Iraq

Surely, this will give the nutroots something to whine about today.

Vice President Dick Cheney and Iraqi Prime Minister Mouri al-Maliki acknowledged problems in the pace of reducing violence in Iraq on Wednesday, but both pledged their governments would continue working together toward a solution.

"The meeting with the vice president paved a foundation for practical steps to support our efforts working on both the security front as well as the domestic political issues," said al-Maliki in a joint news conference with Cheney.

Al-Maliki is coming under increasing pressure from Washington to demonstrate progress in easing sectarian violence, and Cheney's unannounced visit to Iraq was depicted by U.S. officials as an attempt to press al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders to do more to achieve reconciliation among factions.

"We talked about a way ahead in terms of our mutual interests," Cheney said.

Earlier, Cheney got a firsthand briefing on conditions in Iraq and the effectiveness of the U.S. military buildup from the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

"There's a lot going on. This is a very important time. There's a lot to talk about," Cheney said as he met with Gen. David Petraeus and the new U.S. ambassador here, Ryan Crocker.

Should be only a matter of time until the HuffPosters are pining for his assassination.

Cheney made Iraq the first stop on a weeklong tour of the Middle East that will also include stops in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The stop had not been announced publicly.

Harry Reid's Bloody Hands

Harry Reid seems quite determined to drive over the cliff and take his party with him. While I'm all for the Democrats self-destructing, by denying the troops the necessary funds for the war, he's endangering both their lives and ours. If the Democrats are so naive to think our enemies will just lay down their arms if we bug out of Iraq, they're even more dangerous that I ever imagined.

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.

No, Reid didn't repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday's speech from the Senate floor.

It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed - witness Sen. Chuck Schumer's gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that "the war is not lost."

Meanwhile, Michael Barone examines the quandary the Democrats find themselves in, having to deal with the lunatics like CodePink while trying to straddle the fine line of public opinion: pandering to those who want out while not wanting to be blamed for cutting off funding. Good luck with that.

We witness here a division in the Democratic Party -- its politicians and its voters -- we have seen ever since military action started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not necessarily the same: Mr. Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the troops must be funded; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the war resolution and said last November that of course the troops will be funded, now says he's for Sen. Russ Feingold's March 2008 deadline.

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what is actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Mrs. Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but that brings to mind the fact Mrs. Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a March 8 Pentagon videoconference with Gen. Petraeus.

How long this fight will go on is unclear. Some Democrats predict it will continue for months. But their dilemma remains the same. They want to be seen as acting to end the war. But they dare not be seen as not funding the troops.

Check out AJ Strata for more.

UPDATE: Hard to fathom, but Reid is getting dumber by the day. Check out the latest at Hot Air. More also at Michelle Malkin, Riehl World View, Protein Wisdom, Jules Crittenden.

Reid Looking to Hasten Surrender

The gutless puke Harry Reid will not retreat from widespread condemnation over his declaration of defeat last week, and is compounding the error by seeking to accelerate the terms of surrender.

Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.

Reid said the legislation "immediately transitions the U.S. military away from policing a civil war." He said that troops that remain in Iraq after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."

The Nevada Democrat outlined the elements of the legislation in a speech a few hours after Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats intend to pass. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said.

Bush made his comments to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with senior military leaders, including his top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

Of course, the Democrats have no idea what's going on, since they're skipping briefings.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to limit coverage of their surrender announcement. I wonder why?

From: House RadioTV
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Iraq Supplemental conference meeting coverage

Dear Members of the Radio-TV Correspondents' Association,

I want to apprise you of a troubling situation regarding House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey's decision this morning to deny television coverage of today's Iraq Supplemental Appropriations conference meeting.

Imagine the furor if Republicans tried such a stunt. The situation is called troubling.