Foster, Bush, Oberweis and Iraq

Today's Daily Herald: Democrat goes after Bush, Oberweis. Foster critizes Oberweis for supporting Bush's pocket veto of the Defense Appropriation bill.

Congress approved the $696.3 billion 2008 Defense Authorization Act before adjourning for its holiday break last month. But Bush, who objected to a provision in the measure that he said would delay Iraq reconstruction, refused to sign it, effectively exercising his right to a pocket veto.

The Herald fails to not that provision was one that would allow lawsuits against our Iraqi Allies, and the immediate freeze on their asset for crimes committed by Saddam Hussein.

Yesterday's Washingot Post criticizes Democrats and Foster fits: See No Good: Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?

What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures -- coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections -- a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.

Mr. Obama acknowledged some reduction of violence, but said he had predicted that adding troops would have that effect. In fact, on Jan. 8, 2007, he said that in the absence of political progress, "I don't think 15,000 or 20,000 more troops is going to make a difference in Iraq and in Baghdad." He also said he saw "no evidence that additional American troops would change the behavior of Iraqi sectarian politicians and make them start reining in violence by members of their religious groups." Ms. Clinton, for her part, refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require "a suspension of disbelief" to believe that the surge was working.

Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn't "see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today" and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam ("We have to figure out what we're going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there" and "all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?"). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for "a phased redeployment"; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.

Foster said back in September: The first, second and third issue is Iraq.

Foster was right.

Iraq an issue worth bickering and Oberweis responded last last night to the question about Iraq with an answer worthy of John McCain. Note McCain's quoted here saying yesterday in the WSJ,

“The first reason I’m running for president is the war in Iraq,” Sen. McCain said when he took the microphone. “The final reason I’m running is the war in Iraq.”

Quit worrying about who can sue our Iraqi allies Mr. Foster for crimes committed by the tyrant who caused them so much suffering.

Get back to issues 1, 2, and 3. Stop the bickering-kids-ad nonsense for there is much adults must debate.

A good start would be a response to the Washington Post's editorial. A response not as scientist, or businessman, but as a patriot, about what America's duty should be to the youngest democracy in the middle-east.