How refreshing. Too bad this isn't playing on the MSM.

It's simple; if we want to win wars, we need better media.
==================================

The Democratic Party must be infiltrated with patriots.

The media, Pelosi and Reid ARE the enemy, the enemy within.

/spit

Oops, sorry, I forgot to add Teddy Kennedy (D-Chivas), Dick Turban, Feinstein, Boxer, Conyers, Murtha, Sheila Jackson Lee, & Rangle to the list of enemies within. I'll think of more seditious traitors and add them later.

I just learned that the Dem's proposed war spending bill contains "a provision in the bill that requires US troops to wait 15 days before engaging enemy forces in Iraq."

Wow. These scum will do anything they can to hamper us. Duncan Hunter is calling for Reid's resignation over his "the war is lost" comment. It's about time someone stepped up to the plate on this.

Source

Jeff,

I'm not certain exactly what the 15 day measure entails. Do they actually mean 15 days before every time they engage? If so, that is the most transparent act of sabatoge I've seen from the Democrats yet.

Jeff Blogworthy:

The source you link to simply quotes Duncan Hunter, it does not identify the provision he's referring to. Textbook case of "he said, she said" journalism (in other words bad journalism, although this is not even really an article it's actually a link to audio recording). I haven't listened to the audio, does that provide more detail?

This is not to say the provision doesn't exist, but I'd like to see more definitive proof.

Now if there really were a vast right wing conspiracy that would appear as paid advertising in pricey one minute slots. Now, who took my wallet?
===================================

Heralder & sean/nyc:

Unfortunately, you guys know as much as I do at this point. I was wondering about those specifics myself, Heralder. I doubt Hunter is making it up. The sausage is made; I await its dissection.

I did find another discussion of the issue HERE. Apparently Duncan Hunter is the only one talking about it at the moment.

Speaker Pelosi struck the first wedge into what should be a united American foreign policy on Iraq by introducing a defense bill, which would effectively move the position of Commander in Chief to the U.S. Congress. Along with timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, the Pelosi bill, on page 72, mandates a 15 day waiting period before an American unit can be moved into the Iraq war theater.

This incredibly obstructive provision would have profound negative effects on our forces' abilities to fight. For example, should US hostages be taken and a Delta Force team moved from outside the theater to attempt a rescue, Pelosi's provision would require a fifteen-day waiting period and a report to Congress before the rescue could be attempted. Should a Zarqawi level target be located and U.S. fighter aircraft be deployed from outside Iraq, the same fifteen days would elapse before a strike could be executed. The very nature of the "notice and wait" requirement illustrates how unfamiliar Democrats are with the war against terrorists. This is a new era involving rapid movement of specialized personnel and equipment across theater boundaries. "Notice and wait for two weeks" reflects an ultimate misunderstanding of U.S. military operations.

So Hunter apparently indicates that the provision did indeed make it into the final version.

H.R.1591 U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007

CHAPTER 9
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1901. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are rated `fully mission capable'.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.

(c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term `fully mission capable' means capable of performing assigned mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense readiness reporting system. [ that the unit is fully mission capable.

(c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term `fully mission capable' means capable of performing assigned mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense readiness reporting system. [

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military department's assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable, may waive the limitation prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

Thanks for the information Jeff.

Jeff:

Thanks for following up on that. Reading through the section, you can clearly see what it was meant to do, namely make sure troops are prepared to enter the fray. Duncan Hunter raises good points about how this may potentially be a problem, but the likelihood of his examples arising seems low. We already have aircraft carriers in the Gulf conducting aerial operations and I would have to imagine there are rescue mission capable squads deployed at all times in Iraq.

All this does not mean the provision is a good idea and certainly could constrain the flexibility of the armed sources in case of some unforeseen event. However, Congress appears to have attempted to factor in potential emergency situations in section (d). Whether or not this is sufficient (it could be read as micromanaging the war or may still result in a delay of a day or two), is still up for debate.

But this will likely all be moot when Bush uses his veto pen.

Kalb shows us who is losing the war.
=======================

The 15-day period can be waived as per section (d).

The intent of the provision is clear from section (a):

Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are rated `fully mission capable'.

Deploying units that are not fully mission capable, don't have their proper equipment, preparation or training is happening all the time now and is an indication of how badly stretched our forces are. It's also an indication that we need a return of a mandatory draft.

Still, I believe it should be the President's prerogative to this in time of war and the provision should be dropped.

Larkin,

"Deploying units that are not fully mission capable, don't have their proper equipment, preparation or training is happening all the time now..."

Your opinion. I call B.S.

It looks like an obvious ploy to stymie troop deployments. When it comes to liberal Democrats - who live in an idealistic fantasy world where no war is valid - there is no such thing as "troop readiness."

Should Democrat congressmen have to power to "certify", or withhold certification, of troop readiness? Let the reader decide. I can hardly conceive of anything more disastrous.

harry reid et al...who elects these girlie-men? I'd be too embarrassed to admit that!!

I must correct myself. The "certification" is not made by congress but "the chief of the military department concerned." It looks like the only change is a 15-day waiting period after said certification. Still a very bad idea.

A civil speech. He didn't call the opposition party traitors or criminals. In today's political discourse, that's actually an accomplishment worthy of praise.

Of course, the Democrats haven't used the word surrender; the "language" of surrender is used by the Republicans and applied to the Democrats. It's the usual tactic of putting words into people's mouths.

Overall, a civil tone of disagreement. Not bad.

The "language" of surrender is used by the Democrats. The Repulicans are just calling a spade a spade by using the actual word.

makes ya wonder about a party SO EAGER to admit defeat. "Baby, Baby, stick yer head in gravy..."

Moseby I'm with you. Who elects these girlie men? Apparently some of our resident girlie men trolls. Ugh. An embarrassment. The feminization of the democrat party continues at warp speed.

According to Republicans, it's the duty of Congress under the Constitution to call for the withdrawal of troops against the President's wishes. But, only if president is Clinton, it seems.

Hypocrisy 1
Hypocrisy 2

I love watching Sock Puppet Jo squirming in the morning.

How striking that there were absolutely zero U.S. interests to protect in Haiti or Somalia. Apparently this is the only kind of war a Democrat can support - zero U.S. interest against a helpless non-threat. When U.S. interests are high and the enemy has both the capability and the will to strike us - has even made it expressly clear that it is their dying wish to do so - liberal Democrats wilt. Let us not forget that even in the case of Somalia, Clinton left our men on the ground without air support. Hypocrisy indeed.

Hop on this one boys and girls, lads and lassies: Google S. Con. Res. 7 (Co-sponsored by John Warner, Carl Levin, Olympia Snowe, Nelson and Collins). It's a corker!

How low can they go? Depths of treachery as yet unplumbed!