Note: This post, which originally went up shortly after midnight, has been moved to the top for the rest of the day.

_________________________________

Really, I don’t think it’s possible to make a better case for George Voinovich’s retirement than the letter he wrote to President Bush on June 26 about how to deal with the current situation in Iraq.

That is why I have posted it in its entirety here. Readers, especially those in Ohio who must endure Mr. Voinovich for 3-1/2 more years, need to see what happens to someone’s judgment when they spend way too much time in careerist politics, and way too much time breathing in the Washington Beltway air.

If Old Media wanted to make itself more relevant, it would have posted Mr. Voinovich’s letter in its entirely two weeks ago, when it first became public. I am told it was sent to top Ohio party officials at the same time or shortly after it was sent to the President. I’m not aware that there was any indication that it was supposed to be a “for your eyes only” document. Instead, of course, Old Media cherry-picked phrases from the letter that criticized the current situation and ignored Voinovich’s overall near-total failure to absorb the lessons of history, or to comprehend the nature of our enemy.

In one letter, Mr. Voinovich manages to invoke nearly every failed leftist bromide ever tried, and seems proud of himself for having done so. What follows isn’t even close to a complete list of the insufferable pap:

• “international cooperation” (that’s worked so well in Kosovo)
• “coordinated foreign aid”
• “responsible military disengagement”
• “combin(ing) the resources of our military with the resources of our diplomatic corps and international partners.”
• “Military Disengagement Does Not Equal Abandonment”
• “a robust diplomatic effort to contain instability”
• having Iraq’s “regional neighbors take a greater responsibility in stabilizing this situation.” (IRAN, perhaps?)
• “a timeline for disengagement”
• “Preserve American credibility by staying involved in Iraq” (but of course not militarily)
• “Shuttle diplomacy” (that really worked with Warren Christopher, didn’t it?)
• “organize an international conference to bring together Iraq’s neighbors, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the UN Secretary General.” (the gag reflex is almost overwhelming)
• “restore our credibility and standing in the world.” (Uh George, though Old Media won’t admit it, US stature has grown in the past few years, NOT declined, as has the list of those more closely allied with the Bush Administration — See what I mean about that Beltway air?)
• “our commitment to pay the full amount of our current outstanding dues to the UN ….. would send a powerful message to the world and bolster the American image tremendously.” (The skin crawls at the naivete. Our international standing would not move up one iota if we sent more money to the collection of thugs, dictators, and apparatchiks whose fecklessness and corruption helped create the Iraq monster.)
• “the greater fight against terrorism” (Aw, what’s the bleeping point if he doesn’t even understand this?)

Yesterday’s catfight with John McCain (HT RAB), where Voinovich claimed that Al Qaeda “wouldn’t be in Iraq” if American forces weren’t there, ices the cake. Did it ever occur to George that AQ would likely be aiming more attacks at us on our own soil if we didn’t have troops in Iraq and elsewhere tying up their leadership and resources (and killing them from time to time)?

Make no mistake — George Voinovich is promoting the same babble that brought us the Cambodian killing fields, the boat people, and the ongoing tyranny that still is Vietnam, over 30 years later. Under the Voinovich “plan,” there would be an Iraqi and Middle East rerun — perhaps not at first, but it would come. Perhaps it would happen quickly, or maybe in slow motion, but it would happen. Given the enemy’s religious fanaticism, their willingness to blow themselves up, and to use any weapon it might get its hands on, George Voinovich’s plan, which would in reality end up being cut-and-run in stages, could very well lead to a bigger bloodbath than Southeast Asia. What would be left of our “credibility” then, George?

Face it:

• George Voinovich has lost it on fiscal policy, believing despite all the evidence of increased revenues to the Treasury that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts somehow deprived the government of money, and refusing to budge on the ongoing grave robbery that is the death tax.
• His final vote notwithstanding, he has lost it on immigration; if he had his way, we’d be waving through all manner of criminals, and worse, if in 24 hours we couldn’t find a reason to keep them out.
• Now he has clearly lost it on foreign policy and the War on Terror.

What’s remains?

The only reason Clueless George Voinovich should hang on until 2010 is that if he resigned, Governor Ted Strickland would appoint someone even worse.

_________________________________

Related SOB Commentary: Ohio Conservative, One Oar in the Water, Pain Dealer, Weapons of Mass Discussion (here, here, and here — “White Flag Republicans” indeed), and Thespis Journal.

Ohio Karnival 73, ably kompiled by Ben Keeler (I know, this is korny) is up, and worth konsulting.

In a ridiculous report about a ridiculous amount of wasteful government spending (over a billion dollars) on “nutrition education” containing a ridiculous number of ridiculous quotes, this one stands out for the most ridicule:

“Calorie burning has become the province of the wealthy,” said (pediatric endocrinologist and researcher Dr. Philip) Zeitler. “I fear that what we’re going to see is a divergence of healthy people and unhealthy people. Basically, like everything else, it costs money to be healthy.”

Yeah, right. Tell that to the Ari Armstrong family (related BizzyBlog post is here).

______________________________________

Tilting at Windmills in The Netherlands with some success (HT Instapundit, who calls it “Dutch censorship”; well, it is PUBLIC broadcasting). The windmills of the country’s tax-funded broadcast operation didn’t fall, but their inner workings were revealed, which may be enough to change them ever-so-slightly. Regardless, it definitely exposed them.

______________________________________

Imagine that — A freed kidnap victim doesn’t thank his captors. The kidnappers’ feeeewings are apparently hurt:

The kidnappers expressed bizarre resentment that Johnston, 45, had done nothing to thank them for their hospitality while they held him at gunpoint in a tiny cell.

“We used to give him everything he wanted,” Abu Zobayer, an aide to Dagmoush, said.

“We spent £70 on his food every week. The Matouk restaurant [one of the best eateries in Gaza] got rich because we had to feed him.”

No doubt using money filtered through the free world they’d like to reduce to rubble.

_____________________________________

Cindy Sheehan, Carpetbagger? Y’know, I wanted to publish my kept-to-self prediction that Cindy Sheehan would not, and in fact could not, stay away from the spotlight, and that she would return from her self-imposed retirement in about 60 days.

Well, I’m glad I didn’t, because I was wrong — It was more like 35 (i.e., “five weeks“).

Longtime BizzyBlog readers know that I cannot possibly support Sheehan if she decides to follow through on her “threat” to run for Congress against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi next year, because of this (bold is mine):

Sheehan said she lives in a Sacramento suburb but declined to disclose which city, citing safety reasons. The area is outside Pelosi’s district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

That’s too bad, because the entertainment value of a Sheehan-Pelosi slugfest would be beyond compare. So, Cindy, please-please-PLEASE move into Fancy Nancy’s district. If you do, I offer three words of encouragement: You go, girl.

Update: My “enthusiasm” for a run by St. Cindy is tempered by this perfect example of how she is entirely a propped-up creation of the Bush-deranged press:

After her announcement, Sheehan and about 20 anti-war protesters began their 13-day trip with a symbolic march to the edge of Crawford, where a billboard of Bush and first lady Laura Bush welcomes visitors.

Twenty? That’s a football practice that’s short two players. It’s a major league baseball roster short five. It’s not even one full elementary-school classroom. And she STILL gets national press attention?

Nasty, Brutish & Short thinks Sheehan actually has a chance.

From Christchurch, New Zealand:

A Christchurch surf life-saver who spent 12 hours getting smashed into rocks and sucked under water in a British cave says he only felt scared for his friend, who was slipping in and out of consciousness during the ordeal.

Cantabrians Shane Davis, 22, and Renee Potgieter, 21, were forced to cling to rocks in the cave at Trenance Point, Mawgan Porth, in Cornwall, after Potgieter got sucked out to sea in a rip current on Monday.

Davis, speaking to The Press from London, said the pair went for a walk along the beach about 1pm (midnight NZT) to explore a cave that was accessible at low tide.

They were soon walking in waist-deep water, and Potgieter was swept off her feet and dragged out “pretty quickly”.
“The surf was really strong and I couldn’t get her out,” Davis said.

“We got sucked around the point and got stuck in the whirlpool, where waves were crashing us on to rocks.

“We were going in and out on to rocks, and under the water. It made Renee really, really tired and exhausted.”

Davis spotted another cave he had been in before that had a patch out of the water during low tide.

“It was either heading for that or risk Renee not being able to make it all the way to the beach. It was quite far to swim to the beach,” he said.

“I wasn’t really scared for myself. I was more scared for Renee because she wasn’t as experienced in the water.”

They swam to the cave, where they were forced to the back by the rising tide. They kept each other warm using body heat.

Davis said they spent about 2½ hours in the water inside the cave during high tide.

“She was real optimistic until she started suffering from hypothermia; then she didn’t really know what was going on,” Davis said.

“We spent a lot of time in the water, which is why her condition worsened.”

Exhausted, Davis fell asleep inside the cave for a time while Potgieter drifted in and out of consciousness.

About 1am on Tuesday (noon NZT) they saw lifeboats flashing lights over the sea…..

Go here for the rest of the story.

Note: This is the letter that is the subject of this post (in process) about Senator Voinovich’s current Iraq War “position.” It has been reformatted, but no text has been changed.

________________________________________

June 26, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The United States has been faced with tremendous challenges during your administration. As the United States engages in its fifth year in Iraq, I submit to you respectfully that we must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our country’s gradual military disengagement from Iraq and a corresponding increase in responsibility to the Iraqi government and its regional neighbors. Though it may seem contradictory, I believe we can accomplish more in Iraq by gradually and responsibly reducing our forces and focusing on a robust strategy of international cooperation and coordinated foreign aid. We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq.

As you know, I have been concerned about the situation in Iraq for some time. Nonetheless, I was steadfast in voting against any legislation that would limit or cut off spending for the war. I have consistently opposed attempts to limit your powers as our Commander-in-Chief, and I have openly opposed any form of precipitous withdrawal that would threaten our men and women in uniform, endanger American interests, or abandon the commitment we have made to the people of Iraq who do want our help.

A policy of responsible military disengagement with a corresponding increase non-military support is the best way to advance our nation’s interests in Iraq and achieve our primary goals: to help Iraqis stabilize their country and improve the security of the United States. However, I am also concerned that we are running out of time.

The commitment of the United States to the principles of democracy and freedom will not falter. Our military has fought courageously and admirably, and it is time to pursue a strategy that combines the resources of our military with the resources of our diplomatic corps and international partners. I have enclosed a brief position paper that outlines my thoughts for a way forward in Iraq.

I hope that you will review this paper, and the many other recommendations that have been proposed, as you fulfill the responsibilities of being our Commander-in-Chief. My prayers are with you and our nation.

Sincerely,
George V. Voinovich
United States Senator

cc: Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Secretary Robert Gates
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley

The Way Forward in Iraq

It is in our nation’s security and economic interests to begin to change our strategy in Iraq and initiate a plan for a responsible military disengagement. We have lost 3,530 lives to military operations in Iraq. We have spent over $378 billion plus the funds that were appropriated in the most recent supplemental bill. Our national debt is rising and our government is being forced to abandon critical domestic priorities. Our public image to the world has deteriorated drastically and continues to suffer. If we proceed on the current path, we will endanger our nation’s long-term competitiveness and well-being. Moreover, political realities in Washington will force change. As we approach the 2008 presidential election campaign, the people of the United States may choose to elect a President that promises an immediate withdrawal. This could be very dangerous for the region and American national security interests. Therefore, it is time to deal with the realities – the inevitability of our eventual disengagement – and begin the planning for a new way forward in Iraq.

Military Disengagement Does Not Equal Abandonment

It is absolutely critical that we avoid being forced into a precipitous withdrawal, whether it is because of world events or our own political atmosphere at home. The dangers of a precipitous withdrawal include the potential destabilization of the region; the disintegration of United States relations with various allies in the region; the endangerment of vital energy supplies in the Middle East; and irreparable damage to the credibility of the United States throughout the world (especially if we leave and a humanitarian crisis ensues). If we lose the opportunity to implement a responsible military disengagement on our own terms, we may find ourselves unable to prevent the aforementioned dangers. Therefore, we must formulate a strategy for disengagement that seeks to prevent these outcomes and protect our long-term, strategic interests in the region.

While our men and women in the field courageously fight day in and day out, complex power struggles in the region and among Iraq’s religious sects and political factions continue to undermine American troops. Iraq’s elected government has not yet proved capable of forging a political reconciliation and winning the support of these groups. Following the second attack on a Shiite shrine in Samarra, Iraq’s government has grown increasingly nervous as political factions split even further. Shiites are now fighting with Shiites in neighborhoods that were previously calm. According to the testimony of numerous experts and officials who have testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, Iraq’s problems cannot be solved with a military solution alone. Rather, Iraq’s future rests largely on political solutions within the Iraqi government, its perceived leaders and Iraq’s neighboring countries where American influence is limited. Currently, the only leverage we have to influence these actors and trigger political cooperation is through the presence and/or removal of our military forces from Iraq.

Unfortunately, the presence of American forces in Iraq is being exploited by Iraq’s political actors, religious sects, and militias, as well as al Qaeda, other foreign fighters, and Iraq’s neighboring countries. Their leaders are not moving quickly to make responsible decisions and change the situation, because the continued presence of American forces fuel their arguments and make compromise unnecessary. Therefore, our best chance of stabilizing Iraq is to develop and implement a strategy for United States military disengagement that is coupled with a robust diplomatic effort to contain instability and protect our interests in the region. It is time the Iraqi government and its regional neighbors take a greater responsibility in stabilizing this situation. Military disengagement is the only way to force Iraq’s leaders and neighboring countries to make the difficult decisions needed to create stability and prevent a catastrophe in the region. Only by initiating such a strategy can we hope to achieve all of the following goals:

• Compel Iraq’s leaders and neighbors to take actions that will support stability in Iraq and prevent chaos in the region;
• Make al Qaeda’s mission to drive out U.S. forces obsolete, so Iraqi tolerance for al Qaeda decreases;
• Stop terrorist networks from using Iraq’s perceived occupation as a recruitment tool;
• Develop a plan for Iraq that can be endorsed by all of Iraq’s neighbors and key international organizations;
• Agree on a timeline for disengagement that is acceptable to the people of Iraq, blessed by the international community, and easier to implement because it has their support;
• Protect key American alliances in the region by working with them to develop our exit strategy and working to address their fears and concerns;
• Preserve American credibility by staying involved in Iraq and focusing more energy on refugee assistance, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction aid;
• Focus our resources on other fronts in the war on terrorism; and
• Rest and repair our military forces for potential future conflicts.

Military disengagement cannot be viewed as an abandonment of Iraq or our long-term strategic interests in the region. If we pursue a well-developed and comprehensive plan for withdrawing U.S. forces, we will have a better chance of achieving our goals and sustaining domestic support for a continued commitment in the future. Drawing out our current efforts indefinitely will deplete our resources and limit our options when we eventually decide to draw down our forces. By forming the strategy now, we have time on our side and can mitigate the possible negative consequences of our departure.

What is the Way Forward?

A Clear Announcement and a Clear Commitment

The United States should begin by issuing a clear announcement about the intention to responsibly withdraw our military forces from Iraq, while stressing our commitment to remain engaged in Iraq’s future and the future stability of the Middle East. The statement should and must go hand in hand with a demonstration of our decision, to ensure that it is taken seriously. The demonstration could be to draw back a significant number of our forces to major military garrisons or to redeploy them to forward operating bases in neighboring countries. The goal would be to reduce our visible presence, while sustaining our ability to respond immediately to any serious crisis or attack on U.S. soldiers or installations.

The announcement should also be coupled with an expression of our commitment to Iraq’s future and our determination to stay involved in the region and prevent its destabilization. We must make clear that our decision to leave is based on a desire to bring an end to the violence, to force out foreign fighters, and to allow Iraqis to reclaim their country from terrorists and militants. We must also emphasize that we will come to Iraq’s assistance if asked, and that we will remain in the region to assist our other allies as well.

Lastly, we should make clear our pledge to provide Iraq with our financial and humanitarian assistance for the next several years, including a special program for assisting refugees who have left Iraq and refugees who want to return to Iraq when the violence stops. Prior to the announcement, we should have a plan in place to resettle a portion of Iraqi refugees in the United Sates, especially those who helped U.S. forces as linguists, informants, or in other ways.

An International Conference and Shuttle Diplomacy

Military disengagement must go hand-in-hand with a plan for robust diplomatic engagement aimed at preventing instability and leveraging Iraq’s neighbors to help us prevent chaos in the region. On the multilateral front, the United States should organize an international conference to bring together Iraq’s neighbors, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the UN Secretary General. The purpose of the conference would be to discuss how to maintain stability in the Middle East, manage the refugee crisis, and forge a new political compact in Iraq that will address key political issues in Iraq, including resource allocation, de-Baathification, and reconciliation. The conference should aim to produce an agreement among its participants and a subsequent UN Security Council Resolution. The agreement should establish agreement on a number of important issues, including respect for Iraq’s sovereignty and its current borders, and any arrangement to provide an international peacekeeping force if sectarian conflict leads to a humanitarian crisis.

On the margins of the international conference, the United States should conduct a series of focused bilateral meetings with Iraq’s leadership, our allies, and Iraq’s neighbors. The meetings should address specific concerns, including cooperation to control Iraq’s borders and cooperation to prevent retaliatory attacks on U.S. soldiers upon withdrawal. We should make clear that any coordinated attack on U.S. soldiers would be responded to with speed and severity.

A Substantial Package of Foreign Aid

The way forward and out of Iraq will require a substantial aid package for Iraq. This is an important step and will send a clear message that we intend to keep our promise to the Iraqis and help stabilize their country. We will also need to provide foreign aid to key partners in the region, such as Jordan and Kuwait, who will be impacted strategically and economically by military disengagement. This must include refugee assistance and increased economic and security assistance to help them deal with the thousands of Iraqi refugees and manage security at their borders. It is a sign of goodwill that advances U.S. interests by helping to protect our partnerships and prevent the spread of instability through the region. Though some may balk at the expense of foreign aid to Iraq or other partners, it is only a fraction of the costs of sustaining war operations.

Sustain U.S. Credibility and Bolster Public Diplomacy

As a final and critical component of any plan for military disengagement, we must find ways to restore our credibility and standing in the world. The war in Iraq was a major blow to our soft power and public diplomacy. It cannot be rebuilt overnight, but steps should be taken to prevent the further deterioration of our image in the aftermath of a withdrawal. First, we should follow up our disengagement from Iraq with an announcement of our commitment to remain involved in the greater fight against terrorism and to engage more heavily in Afghanistan and the Global War on Terrorism. We should devote more resources to strangling terrorist financial networks, promoting international law enforcement cooperation, and ridding countries of dangerous Madrassas that train terrorists. Second, we should give a visible priority to the Middle East Peace Process and our relations with all countries in the Middle East. We must show that our disengagement from Iraq does not represent an abandonment of our commitment to stabilize the Greater Middle East. Third, we should pursue a significant foreign aid program that will draw attention to the United States’ good works and involvement in the world. This could begin with our commitment to pay the full amount of our current outstanding dues to the UN for international peacekeeping and other arrears, which would send a powerful message to the world and bolster the American image tremendously.

Conclusion

I believe that we can set our nation on a new course in Iraq that has bipartisan support in Congress and sustains our commitment to the people of Iraq. We can share more of the responsibility with Iraqis and their neighbors, while protecting our vital interests. We must begin the process now. The United States is a powerful and principled nation, and we are entering just one more phase of our nation’s history. Our courage and resolve can carry us through this experience and into a new phase of global leadership.

-END-