Friday, July 25, 2008
A Note to Congress: Folks, the Democrat Party-led U.S. Congress is about to go on vacation! The Democrats are trying desperately to finish business and adjourn WITHOUT addressing the domestic drilling issue!
Nancy Pelosi is perfectly happy to go on VACATION and leave you and me saddled with gas at $4.25 a gallon or more.
I think we the voters should send along a note to Madam Speaker wishing her a nice restful vacation and thank her for the gas prices we have to deal with out here in the "real world".
To make it easier for you, here's a link where you send a your personal note to Nancy Pelosi:
Thank Nancy Pelosi Here
Nancy Pelosi is perfectly happy to go on VACATION and leave you and me saddled with gas at $4.25 a gallon or more.
I think we the voters should send along a note to Madam Speaker wishing her a nice restful vacation and thank her for the gas prices we have to deal with out here in the "real world".
To make it easier for you, here's a link where you send a your personal note to Nancy Pelosi:
Thank Nancy Pelosi Here
Labels: Congress, Democrat Party, Democrats, Drilling, Gas, Gas Prices, Oil, Pelosi, Reid
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
The Democrat Party Leading the Way: Gas prices continue climbing out of sight. Auto manufacturers are shutting down production lines. Airlines are grounding flights and parking their planes. Layoffs are starting to hit the economy.
Don't worry. The Democrat Party is in charge in the U.S. Congress! Yep. They're showing us all how Democrats lead. How they solve problems. How they deal with the problems of our times.
They've gone on vacation. The Democrat Party leadership in the U.S. Congress has adjourned Congress for a nice vacation while the effects of the out-of-control oil prices begin seriously dragging the economy down. Yep. That's how they roll, that's how they lead!
Don't worry. The Democrat Party is in charge in the U.S. Congress! Yep. They're showing us all how Democrats lead. How they solve problems. How they deal with the problems of our times.
They've gone on vacation. The Democrat Party leadership in the U.S. Congress has adjourned Congress for a nice vacation while the effects of the out-of-control oil prices begin seriously dragging the economy down. Yep. That's how they roll, that's how they lead!
Labels: Congress, Democrat Party, Democrats, Domestic, Drilling, Economy, Gas, Gas Prices, Oil, Pelosi, Reid
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Democrats Block Cheaper Gas: Democrats today blocked a vote to allow drilling for new domestic supplies of oil.
Face it folks, the only way we're going to bring down gas prices significantly and for an enduring period is to increase the supply. You cannot conserve your way out of competition for existing supplies. The more you conserve, the more oil is available for China and India to buy.
If we want lower prices, we need more oil. Democrats continue to block that solution. Next time you fill your tank, thank a Democrat for the cost.
Face it folks, the only way we're going to bring down gas prices significantly and for an enduring period is to increase the supply. You cannot conserve your way out of competition for existing supplies. The more you conserve, the more oil is available for China and India to buy.
If we want lower prices, we need more oil. Democrats continue to block that solution. Next time you fill your tank, thank a Democrat for the cost.
Labels: Anwar, Congress, Democrat Party, Democrats, Drilling, energy, Gas, Gas Prices, Oil, Pelosi, Reid
Sunday, November 18, 2007
New Effort to Defeat U.S. Military: A new effort has been launched to defeat the U.S. military in Iraq. An attack has been launched against the supply lines that support the troops in combat.
The goal is to strangle the supply flow to our troops, halting the flow of food, bullets, bombs, and protective vehicles. The off-shoot to this strategy to beat the U.S. military may be the shutdown of the entire Pentagon structure and the paralysis of the entire Department of Defense.
Al-Qaeda? No. Iran? No. Muqtuda al-Sadr? No. The newly implemented strategy is brought to you by the Democrats in the U.S. Congress who desperately want to see the U.S. military defeated in Iraq.
They have staked their entire political future on "the war is lost", and "there is no military solutions", and "we have no business in the middle of a civil war". Now that it looks like our military is kicking the collective asses of the insurgent forces, the Democrats have moved in with their "strangle the supply flow and retreat" strategy. I might add that it's a strategy that Al-Qaeda and Iran would dearly love to be able to employ themselves.
The Democrat Party leadership has finally put it on the table in easy-to-understand terms: "we- the U.S. military- are going to quit this war regardless of the fact that it means a victory for Al-Qaeda and Iran. We don't care about any future ramifications from surrendering and retreating from the battlefield under fire, it's more important that George Soros and MoveOn.org are happy."
So there it is. When you hear a Pelosi or Reid or Murtha say "we support the troops", you now know that means George Soros' and MoveOn.org's troops. They DO NOT SUPPORT the U.S. military and couldn't care less if they destroy the entire Pentagon in their haste to surrender in Iraq.
Yep. Roosevelt and Truman would be proud.
The goal is to strangle the supply flow to our troops, halting the flow of food, bullets, bombs, and protective vehicles. The off-shoot to this strategy to beat the U.S. military may be the shutdown of the entire Pentagon structure and the paralysis of the entire Department of Defense.
Al-Qaeda? No. Iran? No. Muqtuda al-Sadr? No. The newly implemented strategy is brought to you by the Democrats in the U.S. Congress who desperately want to see the U.S. military defeated in Iraq.
They have staked their entire political future on "the war is lost", and "there is no military solutions", and "we have no business in the middle of a civil war". Now that it looks like our military is kicking the collective asses of the insurgent forces, the Democrats have moved in with their "strangle the supply flow and retreat" strategy. I might add that it's a strategy that Al-Qaeda and Iran would dearly love to be able to employ themselves.
The Democrat Party leadership has finally put it on the table in easy-to-understand terms: "we- the U.S. military- are going to quit this war regardless of the fact that it means a victory for Al-Qaeda and Iran. We don't care about any future ramifications from surrendering and retreating from the battlefield under fire, it's more important that George Soros and MoveOn.org are happy."
So there it is. When you hear a Pelosi or Reid or Murtha say "we support the troops", you now know that means George Soros' and MoveOn.org's troops. They DO NOT SUPPORT the U.S. military and couldn't care less if they destroy the entire Pentagon in their haste to surrender in Iraq.
Yep. Roosevelt and Truman would be proud.
Labels: Congress, defeat, Democrat Party, Democrats, Funding, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Pentagon, Reid, surrender, War in Iraq
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Washington Post Opts for Name Calling Over Substance: Okay, the Washington Post has achieved a new, all-time low in political coverage. They are literally making fun of the name "Fred" as a way of taking a shot at Fred Thompson.
Here, for your viewing, is the article I call the "hateful little gem of bigotry". I have reserved room in my blog here at the end for my own little comment about names.
Fred, Fred, Fred: Thompson's Challenge Has a Name
By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; D01
In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)
We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).
Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.
Fur-red-duh.
It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something heavy and damp-ish.
Waterlogged paper towel.
Fred.
The phonetics of the name seem integral to its image problem: On Urbandictionary.com, a "Fred" is defined as "a person who does stupid, annoying, or idiotic things" (Fred Flintstone, Fred Mertz). The best-case descriptors a Fred can hope for are terms like well-intentioned, predictable, benign Fred Rogers.
There has never before been a major presidential candidate named Fred. There were two Alfreds, in 1928 and 1936. But Alfred, being all British and Batman-y, is not the same.
Then, out of almost nowhere, came Thompson, who is transcending the notion of Fred.
Recent media accounts of the guy (who has not yet officially announced his candidacy) would have us believe that being a Fred means Law and Orderly sex-in-a-suit, a name exuding such flypaper pheromones that people find themselves helplessly drawn in. Chris Matthews dedicated three minutes of a recent "Hardball" to exploring Thompson's sex appeal. London's Sunday Times last month interviewed a bevy of his ex-girlfriends, all of whom have drunk the Fred-Aid: "He's majestic," said country singer/Fredophile Lorrie Morgan. "Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us."
Fred?
Why? Is there something about the craggy actor we're not getting? Maybe he's ugly-sexy, like Mick Jagger?
Or maybe the name Fred is etymologically close to obviously sexy names like Dirk, Clint, James?
Grant Smith is an onomastician at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, who studies the branch of linguistics dedicated to proper names. He specializes in dissecting the monikers of political candidates and says he has a 65 percent success rate of predicting elections, based solely on name analysis. Not entirely convincing, but those odds would play in Vegas. "The name Fred is basic and homey," says Smith. "It should give people a reassuring image."
But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?
Silence.
"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at all."
Thompson is a strong name, he says. Thompson is a name with natural trochaic rhythm, which replicates a heartbeat and thus starts building appeal in the womb. "Does he ever go by Frederick?" Smith asks hopefully. FRED-erick THOMP-son would be a winning combination.
But he doesn't. He goes by Fred. Going by Fred, he still has amassed a clan of pitter-patter, all-a flutter followers.
* * *
At the Fredquarters of the Fred Society in Palm Springs, Calif, "Head Fred" Fred Daniel has been defending his good name against charges of boringness and dolt-itude for 23 years. Daniel, 52, founded the society in 1984 by combing the Los Angeles phone book for Freds and sending out a 500-person mailing. There are 5,000 Freds in the organization now, but Daniel must fight for every member. "Unfortunately, Fred has fast fallen out of favor," he laments. From 1885 to 1896, it was the 15th-most-popular boy's baby name. But the last time Fred appeared in the top 1,000 was 2002.
It's a natural cycle. Onomasticians know that names reach points of saturation, points where every Tom, Dick and Harry is named Fred. Parents want baby names that feel unique yet familiar. So once 20- and 30-somethings forget that monikers like Emily and Jacob (the top boy and girl names for 2006) have actually been around for centuries, they start to use them again.
The Fred Society is attempting to speed up the rebirth of Fred with aggressive campaigning: bumper stickers reading "Name your next baby Fred," coffee mugs that are "Built Fred Tough," postcards from Fredhenge and Freddywood.
Fred Thompson is good for the cause. "We at the Fred Society are overjoyed that he might be running for president, because he'll skyrocket the name," says Daniel. He quickly adds, "That's not an endorsement, though. We can't afford to alienate one single Fred -- Democrat or Republican."
And as a fellow Fred, can Daniel understand Thompson's overwhelming appeal?
"I can see how he would make some women's and men's hearts go boom-boom, just like the opening of 'Law and Order.' "
* * *
Fred.
We are trying to understand.
We are willing to admit that that some people find Fred Thompson, yes, sexy.
But we still cannot understand what that means.
What does it signify that we, as a country, are choosing to deem yummy a guy named Fred?
Motivational speaker Mark Sanborn has a theory about that. Sanborn is the author of 2004's "The Fred Factor" (not to be confused with the same-titled Fred Thompson bio released this May). Sanborn's Fred is a mailman from Denver who delights in performing his unheralded job well. Sanborn wrote "The Fred Factor" to extol the pleasures of hard work, which he says the name represents.
"It's the quintessential American name," he says. "It might be dated, but the time we date it back to, the 1950s, was a very bucolic one. Middle-class success, a rising standard of living. Working hard was all you needed to succeed."
Maybe that's it.
The love of Fred Thompson is like the comfort food renaissance -- a longing for green bean casserole. If the name Fred were popular now, we wouldn't be able to long for it. Because it would be here already. But it's not, so we do, and ordinary "Fred" seems as exotic as Mick Jagger.
Fred Thompson is not ugly-sexy. He's stodgy-sexy. He is that onomastic combo of unique yet familiar. We once had Freds. We want them back.
Will that be enough to win him the nomination? We can't say. Daniel, that hopeful proponent of all things Fred, only knows this: "We haven't seen anything like him since Fred Astaire. "
Source Washington Post Article- Click Here
It would be difficult to count how many people have been insulted in this article- people from the south and people who like green bean salad just to name two. This is what anti-Republicanism and anti-conservatism has been reduced to. Playground name calling. Name calling without any apparent concern about the bigoted overtones and hate filled assertions about people based solely on a name.
This gem from a woman named "Monica". Monica. "Mon-ick-uh." Just imagine the tables being turned and a Republican or conservative took a close look at the name "Monica". Let your own mind run rampant on that one, I don't need to be the one to start that discussion.
Amazing. This is what modern punditry and politics have come to. "Insult and defame as many people as you need to, just do as much personal damage to the candidate as you can....."
Here, for your viewing, is the article I call the "hateful little gem of bigotry". I have reserved room in my blog here at the end for my own little comment about names.
Fred, Fred, Fred: Thompson's Challenge Has a Name
By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; D01
In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)
We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).
Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.
Fur-red-duh.
It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something heavy and damp-ish.
Waterlogged paper towel.
Fred.
The phonetics of the name seem integral to its image problem: On Urbandictionary.com, a "Fred" is defined as "a person who does stupid, annoying, or idiotic things" (Fred Flintstone, Fred Mertz). The best-case descriptors a Fred can hope for are terms like well-intentioned, predictable, benign Fred Rogers.
There has never before been a major presidential candidate named Fred. There were two Alfreds, in 1928 and 1936. But Alfred, being all British and Batman-y, is not the same.
Then, out of almost nowhere, came Thompson, who is transcending the notion of Fred.
Recent media accounts of the guy (who has not yet officially announced his candidacy) would have us believe that being a Fred means Law and Orderly sex-in-a-suit, a name exuding such flypaper pheromones that people find themselves helplessly drawn in. Chris Matthews dedicated three minutes of a recent "Hardball" to exploring Thompson's sex appeal. London's Sunday Times last month interviewed a bevy of his ex-girlfriends, all of whom have drunk the Fred-Aid: "He's majestic," said country singer/Fredophile Lorrie Morgan. "Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us."
Fred?
Why? Is there something about the craggy actor we're not getting? Maybe he's ugly-sexy, like Mick Jagger?
Or maybe the name Fred is etymologically close to obviously sexy names like Dirk, Clint, James?
Grant Smith is an onomastician at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, who studies the branch of linguistics dedicated to proper names. He specializes in dissecting the monikers of political candidates and says he has a 65 percent success rate of predicting elections, based solely on name analysis. Not entirely convincing, but those odds would play in Vegas. "The name Fred is basic and homey," says Smith. "It should give people a reassuring image."
But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?
Silence.
"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at all."
Thompson is a strong name, he says. Thompson is a name with natural trochaic rhythm, which replicates a heartbeat and thus starts building appeal in the womb. "Does he ever go by Frederick?" Smith asks hopefully. FRED-erick THOMP-son would be a winning combination.
But he doesn't. He goes by Fred. Going by Fred, he still has amassed a clan of pitter-patter, all-a flutter followers.
* * *
At the Fredquarters of the Fred Society in Palm Springs, Calif, "Head Fred" Fred Daniel has been defending his good name against charges of boringness and dolt-itude for 23 years. Daniel, 52, founded the society in 1984 by combing the Los Angeles phone book for Freds and sending out a 500-person mailing. There are 5,000 Freds in the organization now, but Daniel must fight for every member. "Unfortunately, Fred has fast fallen out of favor," he laments. From 1885 to 1896, it was the 15th-most-popular boy's baby name. But the last time Fred appeared in the top 1,000 was 2002.
It's a natural cycle. Onomasticians know that names reach points of saturation, points where every Tom, Dick and Harry is named Fred. Parents want baby names that feel unique yet familiar. So once 20- and 30-somethings forget that monikers like Emily and Jacob (the top boy and girl names for 2006) have actually been around for centuries, they start to use them again.
The Fred Society is attempting to speed up the rebirth of Fred with aggressive campaigning: bumper stickers reading "Name your next baby Fred," coffee mugs that are "Built Fred Tough," postcards from Fredhenge and Freddywood.
Fred Thompson is good for the cause. "We at the Fred Society are overjoyed that he might be running for president, because he'll skyrocket the name," says Daniel. He quickly adds, "That's not an endorsement, though. We can't afford to alienate one single Fred -- Democrat or Republican."
And as a fellow Fred, can Daniel understand Thompson's overwhelming appeal?
"I can see how he would make some women's and men's hearts go boom-boom, just like the opening of 'Law and Order.' "
* * *
Fred.
We are trying to understand.
We are willing to admit that that some people find Fred Thompson, yes, sexy.
But we still cannot understand what that means.
What does it signify that we, as a country, are choosing to deem yummy a guy named Fred?
Motivational speaker Mark Sanborn has a theory about that. Sanborn is the author of 2004's "The Fred Factor" (not to be confused with the same-titled Fred Thompson bio released this May). Sanborn's Fred is a mailman from Denver who delights in performing his unheralded job well. Sanborn wrote "The Fred Factor" to extol the pleasures of hard work, which he says the name represents.
"It's the quintessential American name," he says. "It might be dated, but the time we date it back to, the 1950s, was a very bucolic one. Middle-class success, a rising standard of living. Working hard was all you needed to succeed."
Maybe that's it.
The love of Fred Thompson is like the comfort food renaissance -- a longing for green bean casserole. If the name Fred were popular now, we wouldn't be able to long for it. Because it would be here already. But it's not, so we do, and ordinary "Fred" seems as exotic as Mick Jagger.
Fred Thompson is not ugly-sexy. He's stodgy-sexy. He is that onomastic combo of unique yet familiar. We once had Freds. We want them back.
Will that be enough to win him the nomination? We can't say. Daniel, that hopeful proponent of all things Fred, only knows this: "We haven't seen anything like him since Fred Astaire. "
Source Washington Post Article- Click Here
It would be difficult to count how many people have been insulted in this article- people from the south and people who like green bean salad just to name two. This is what anti-Republicanism and anti-conservatism has been reduced to. Playground name calling. Name calling without any apparent concern about the bigoted overtones and hate filled assertions about people based solely on a name.
This gem from a woman named "Monica". Monica. "Mon-ick-uh." Just imagine the tables being turned and a Republican or conservative took a close look at the name "Monica". Let your own mind run rampant on that one, I don't need to be the one to start that discussion.
Amazing. This is what modern punditry and politics have come to. "Insult and defame as many people as you need to, just do as much personal damage to the candidate as you can....."
Labels: bias, campaign, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Fred, Fred Thompson, Liberals, media, media bias, name calling, Thompson, Washington Post
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Obama Announces Willingness to go to War- Against an Ally!: Barak Obama seems to have darted to the right in order to get the "let's go to war" vote with his announcement of his willingness to invade Pakistan- a U.S. ally. You read it right. Democrat Barak Obama announced that if President Musharraf of Pakistan didn't follow his (Obama's) orders, he (Obama) would be perfectly willing to invade the country to see his (Obama's) will done.
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
Labels: Barak, Barak Obama, bin Laden, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Musharraf, Obama, Pakistan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Monday, July 30, 2007
Notes for the Democrats- The War in Iraq: Dear Democrats, thought you might be interested in some information about Iraq that could come in handy while you deliberate on forcing the unconditional surrender of U.S. military forces in Iraq. I know you won't believe me, so luckily two liberal journalists from The New York Times just returned from the war zone and filed this report:
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas).
Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave.
In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
(Source Link: The War We Might Just Win)
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas).
Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave.
In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
(Source Link: The War We Might Just Win)
Labels: Baghdad, D-NV, Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Senate, Senator, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Webb, withdraw
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Liberals vs. Freedom of Speech: The fun-loving, tolerant, defender-of-rights liberals are at it again! They're trying to stomp out some more speech they disagree with. Rather than go on Fox News and participate in meaningful debate, they're trying to stomp Fox News out. Yep, this from our defenders of the 1st Ammendment and ACLU-loving, tolerant, elite, deep thinkers on the left. The tolerant liberals that never met an opposing opinion they didn't try to squash.
Don't take my word for it:
(Source link: Liberals Going After Fox News Advertisers)
Liberals Going After Fox Advertisers
Jul 27 04:08 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.
The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.
At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.
"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.
Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.
Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.
Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.
"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."
Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.
The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.
He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.
MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.
"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."
Don't take my word for it:
(Source link: Liberals Going After Fox News Advertisers)
Liberals Going After Fox Advertisers
Jul 27 04:08 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.
The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.
At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.
"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.
Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.
Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.
Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.
"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."
Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.
The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.
He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.
MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.
"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."
Labels: censorship, Democrat Party, Democrats, Fox, Fox News, Freedom of Speech, Liberals, MoveOn, Pelosi, Reid
Democrat Party and Iraq: I'm just going to throw this out on the table. It's a simple question for all to ponder. I don't even really need to weigh in after I pose it. Here it is:
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
Labels: Bush, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, jihadists, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Sheehan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Democrat Anti-War Hoax: I suggest the entire "anti-war movement" is a hoax. There is NO national outcry to leave Iraq. The thinking reader will ask how I can come to this conclusion. It's easy.
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
Labels: Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
