Saturday, October 04, 2008
CSI Political Corruption: Let's play investigator. If you're investigating a crime, and you're looking at the crime scene one thing you do is dust for prints and try to identify potential suspects. Let's say we've surveyed the crime scene and found failed banks, credit vacuum, failed lending institutions, rampant corruption of public officials, etc. We've run the finger prints and here are our possible suspects:
Chris Dodd- Senator. Democrat. Authored legislation that President Bill Clinton signed making it legal for Aurthur Andersen to serve Enron as both auditor and as investment consutlant. Recipient of the largest total campaign contributions of all U.S. Senators over last the 20 years from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Helped thwart Republican efforts in the Senate in 2003, 2004, and 2005 to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by using Senate procedures to kill legislation in committee.
Bill Clinton- Democrat. Former President. Signed authorizing legislation allowing Arthur Andersen to both audit and advise Enron. Set the stage for manipulation of Enron books and the ultimate collapse of Enron. Appointed Jamie Gorelic to Vice Chair of Fannie Mae in 1997.
Bob Reuben- Democrat. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary. Made the frantic call to President Bush's Treasury Secretary in 2001 requesting the Bush Administration intervene and save Enron.
Arthur Andersen- Audit firm and Consulting agency for Enron. Oversaw the management of Enron's books while also running their audits. Prior to the legislation written and sponsored by Democrat Senator Chris Dodd and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton, it was illegal for an investment and consulting firm to also serve as the auditor for customer companies.
Ken Lay- Presiding CEO of Enron when it collapsed. Frequent golf friend of President Bill Clinton. Frequent Lincoln Bedroom guest of President Bill Clinton. Convicted on 10 of 11 counts of securities fraud against him in connection with the fall of Enron. Bob Reuben, President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary tried a last minute request to the Bush Administration to rescue Enron.
Enron- Formerly a Houston based energy that went bankrupt in late 2001. Systemic securities fraud and corruption brought the company down resulting in the conviction of Ken Lay and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen after Enron and Arthur Andersen took advantage of the law that was changed to allow AA to serve as auditor and investment consultant. Dangerous investment practices that would, under the previous law, have been detected in the audit process were, after the change, obscured during AA's audits so as not to impact their profitable investment business.
Diane Feinstein- Senator. Democrat. Steered lucrative defense contracts to her husbands company though legislative pressure.
William Jefferson- Congressman. Democrat. Under investigation by the FBI for graft. Found with $90,000 of FBI sting money wrapped in tin foil in his home freezer.
Charlie Wrangle- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax law. Discovered to have failed to pay any income taxes on the income of his off-shore rental properties. House Ethics Committee is "investigating" him after his statements that he had neglected to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income from a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. Back taxes due on this are estimated to be $10,000. He is also under investigation for using a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem, rented at below-market rate, as a campaign office- a violation of New York State Law.
Nancy Pelosi- Congresswoman. Democrat. Speaker of the House. Second in the successional line for the Presidency. Tax filings revealed she funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars of PAC money to her husbands company. Publicy decries the practice of funneling PAC money to congressional relatives and tried to ban it. Her effort to ban the practice was defeated and she has continued to practice this to present day.
Harry Reid- Senator. Democrat. Senate Majority Leader. Investigated by the Los Angeles Times for suspicious land deals in Nevada. Reid and family members profit through kick backs on commercial land deals in Nevada.
Barney Frank- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the committee charged with oversight of the banking system. Defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Chairmen during committee hearings in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Helped kill legislation in 2005 authored by John McCain to reign in Fannie and Freddie practices.
Maxine Waters- Congresswoman. Democrat. Defended and complimented stewardship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Congressional hearings in 2005.
Jamie Gorelic- Deputy Attorney General under Clinton Administration, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 - 2003 during which a $10 billion accounting scandal was discovered. Government Regulators accused Fannie Mae in 2002 of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses. In addition, in another scandal it was discovered that falsified financial transactions helped Fannie Mae meet earning targets in 1998 and thus triggered multi million-dollar bonuses for top execs- Gorelic received $779,625
Jim Johnson- Former Executive Officer of Fannie Mae. Stepped down after fraudulent morgage transactions nearly bankrupted Fannie Mae. Johnson personnally profited by $21 million through pay and compensation. Jim Johnson was also a managing director with Lehman Brothers, another financial institution that has collapsed in recent months. Personally led Barack Obama's process for selecting Obama's running mate. Donated the individual maximum contribution of $4,600 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign and raised and bundled between $200,000 and $500,000, also for Obama. Participated for Obama in efforts to recruit former President Bill Clinton supporters for the Obama team.
Franklin Raines- Sitting Executive Officer of Fannie Mae when it collapsed. Took over $90 million in personal payments based on overstated earnings of about $6.3 billion before the collapse of Fannie Mae. Civil charges were filed against Raines by the OFHEO seeking $110 million in penalties and $115 in returned salary bonuses from Raines and two other Fannie Mae executives. Raines was one of several public officials who received below-market rate loans from Countrywide Financial based on his personal associations. While CEO of Fannie Mae, he received over $3 million in loans. Raines has told people and it was reported in the Washington Post that he has taken calls from Barack Obama for advice on the housing and lending industries.
ACORN- Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The original, failed "$700 Billion Bailout Bill" that died a public and painful death from a House vote contained an earmark that would have given 20% of all funds recooperated from the $700 billion bailout to ACORN. That's 20% of all money that comes back to the government from the re-sale of the bad mortgages and loans purchased by the federal government through this bailout legislation. ACORN: A "community organizer" organization. In 2004 four ACORN employees indicted by federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms. In 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. In November 2006, four part time ACORN workers were indicted in Kansas City for voter registration fraud. In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail and paid King County $25,000 for investigative costs. So far in 2008, the Michigan State Secretary of State reported ACORN has been submitting sizeable numbers of duplicate and fraudulent voter applications/registrations. Barack Obama served as a community organizer with ACORN and served as their legal representative as well. Obama trained it's members in Chicago and, in turn, ACORN volunteers served on his campaigns.
Barack Obama- Senator. Democrat. Democrat Party Presidential Candidate. Recipient of second largest total campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a 20-year period even though he's only been in the Senate for four years. Appointed Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairman, as head of his Vice Presidential Candidate Selection Committee. He reportedly sought advice of Franklin Raines on housing and mortgage issues. Raines was Chairman of Fannie Mae when it collapsed and had profited by $90 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie Mae. Obama served as community organizer, trainer, and legal representative for ACORN in his early years and the recent $700 billion bailout legislation that failed in the House of Representatives contained an earmark that would have steered to ACORN 20% of all money returning to the federal government from re-sale of bad loans. Barack opted to avoid returning to Washington to help work on this legislation, returning only when directly requested by President Bush. Obama was very careful to avoid any direct contact with the legislation and studiously avoided providing any specific, detailed input.
George W. Bush- President. Republican. Tried in 2003 and 2004 to get legislation through Congress to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee each time. Democrats on those committees complimented the management of Fannie and Freddie and lauded their efforts to increase the number of loans made to people who would not have qualified under previous lending policies and encouraged them to continue increasing the risky loans.
John McCain- Senator. Republican. Republican candidate for President. Authored legislation in 2005 to strengthen regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee when Democrats in both chambers used parliamentary procedures to prevent committee votes.
Can we draw any conclusions from this list?
-One party set the legal wheels in motion and then protected the processes that allowed the credit melt down.
-One party populated the major credit institutions with party faithfuls who raked millions of dollars out them before they ultimately destroyed them.
-One party and one administration refused to bail out and cover up the looting and collapse of Enron
-One party began trying to head off the problems as early as 2003 and was defeated at every turn by the other party who protected their money makers
-One party has a Presidential candidate that actively alerted the nation to the problems and authored legislation to fix it in 2005 but was stymied by the other party
-One party has a Presidential candidate that, when the scope of the problem became clear, flew back to D.C. and tried to participate- again- in fixing the problem. The other party derided him and ridiculed him before their "plan" collapsed in a humiliating defeat in the House of Representatives
-One party has a Presidential candidate that is so closely tied to the collapse of the credit market through cash donations and the active involvement of key campaign chairmen and advisors that he COULD NOT participate in the fix and kept as much distance between himself and "the problem" as possible.
-One party seems to have a thread of corruption that runs through the very highest levels of it's party and political offices
It's a lengthy list of suspects and conclusions. But it appears there are two suspects you can dismiss from the investigation right off the bat. To sort through and investigate the remaining suspects, it will likely take a Special Prosectuor and a Grand Jury- if there is any national interest in such an investigation.
Chris Dodd- Senator. Democrat. Authored legislation that President Bill Clinton signed making it legal for Aurthur Andersen to serve Enron as both auditor and as investment consutlant. Recipient of the largest total campaign contributions of all U.S. Senators over last the 20 years from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Helped thwart Republican efforts in the Senate in 2003, 2004, and 2005 to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by using Senate procedures to kill legislation in committee.
Bill Clinton- Democrat. Former President. Signed authorizing legislation allowing Arthur Andersen to both audit and advise Enron. Set the stage for manipulation of Enron books and the ultimate collapse of Enron. Appointed Jamie Gorelic to Vice Chair of Fannie Mae in 1997.
Bob Reuben- Democrat. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary. Made the frantic call to President Bush's Treasury Secretary in 2001 requesting the Bush Administration intervene and save Enron.
Arthur Andersen- Audit firm and Consulting agency for Enron. Oversaw the management of Enron's books while also running their audits. Prior to the legislation written and sponsored by Democrat Senator Chris Dodd and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton, it was illegal for an investment and consulting firm to also serve as the auditor for customer companies.
Ken Lay- Presiding CEO of Enron when it collapsed. Frequent golf friend of President Bill Clinton. Frequent Lincoln Bedroom guest of President Bill Clinton. Convicted on 10 of 11 counts of securities fraud against him in connection with the fall of Enron. Bob Reuben, President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary tried a last minute request to the Bush Administration to rescue Enron.
Enron- Formerly a Houston based energy that went bankrupt in late 2001. Systemic securities fraud and corruption brought the company down resulting in the conviction of Ken Lay and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen after Enron and Arthur Andersen took advantage of the law that was changed to allow AA to serve as auditor and investment consultant. Dangerous investment practices that would, under the previous law, have been detected in the audit process were, after the change, obscured during AA's audits so as not to impact their profitable investment business.
Diane Feinstein- Senator. Democrat. Steered lucrative defense contracts to her husbands company though legislative pressure.
William Jefferson- Congressman. Democrat. Under investigation by the FBI for graft. Found with $90,000 of FBI sting money wrapped in tin foil in his home freezer.
Charlie Wrangle- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax law. Discovered to have failed to pay any income taxes on the income of his off-shore rental properties. House Ethics Committee is "investigating" him after his statements that he had neglected to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income from a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. Back taxes due on this are estimated to be $10,000. He is also under investigation for using a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem, rented at below-market rate, as a campaign office- a violation of New York State Law.
Nancy Pelosi- Congresswoman. Democrat. Speaker of the House. Second in the successional line for the Presidency. Tax filings revealed she funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars of PAC money to her husbands company. Publicy decries the practice of funneling PAC money to congressional relatives and tried to ban it. Her effort to ban the practice was defeated and she has continued to practice this to present day.
Harry Reid- Senator. Democrat. Senate Majority Leader. Investigated by the Los Angeles Times for suspicious land deals in Nevada. Reid and family members profit through kick backs on commercial land deals in Nevada.
Barney Frank- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the committee charged with oversight of the banking system. Defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Chairmen during committee hearings in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Helped kill legislation in 2005 authored by John McCain to reign in Fannie and Freddie practices.
Maxine Waters- Congresswoman. Democrat. Defended and complimented stewardship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Congressional hearings in 2005.
Jamie Gorelic- Deputy Attorney General under Clinton Administration, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 - 2003 during which a $10 billion accounting scandal was discovered. Government Regulators accused Fannie Mae in 2002 of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses. In addition, in another scandal it was discovered that falsified financial transactions helped Fannie Mae meet earning targets in 1998 and thus triggered multi million-dollar bonuses for top execs- Gorelic received $779,625
Jim Johnson- Former Executive Officer of Fannie Mae. Stepped down after fraudulent morgage transactions nearly bankrupted Fannie Mae. Johnson personnally profited by $21 million through pay and compensation. Jim Johnson was also a managing director with Lehman Brothers, another financial institution that has collapsed in recent months. Personally led Barack Obama's process for selecting Obama's running mate. Donated the individual maximum contribution of $4,600 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign and raised and bundled between $200,000 and $500,000, also for Obama. Participated for Obama in efforts to recruit former President Bill Clinton supporters for the Obama team.
Franklin Raines- Sitting Executive Officer of Fannie Mae when it collapsed. Took over $90 million in personal payments based on overstated earnings of about $6.3 billion before the collapse of Fannie Mae. Civil charges were filed against Raines by the OFHEO seeking $110 million in penalties and $115 in returned salary bonuses from Raines and two other Fannie Mae executives. Raines was one of several public officials who received below-market rate loans from Countrywide Financial based on his personal associations. While CEO of Fannie Mae, he received over $3 million in loans. Raines has told people and it was reported in the Washington Post that he has taken calls from Barack Obama for advice on the housing and lending industries.
ACORN- Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The original, failed "$700 Billion Bailout Bill" that died a public and painful death from a House vote contained an earmark that would have given 20% of all funds recooperated from the $700 billion bailout to ACORN. That's 20% of all money that comes back to the government from the re-sale of the bad mortgages and loans purchased by the federal government through this bailout legislation. ACORN: A "community organizer" organization. In 2004 four ACORN employees indicted by federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms. In 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. In November 2006, four part time ACORN workers were indicted in Kansas City for voter registration fraud. In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail and paid King County $25,000 for investigative costs. So far in 2008, the Michigan State Secretary of State reported ACORN has been submitting sizeable numbers of duplicate and fraudulent voter applications/registrations. Barack Obama served as a community organizer with ACORN and served as their legal representative as well. Obama trained it's members in Chicago and, in turn, ACORN volunteers served on his campaigns.
Barack Obama- Senator. Democrat. Democrat Party Presidential Candidate. Recipient of second largest total campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a 20-year period even though he's only been in the Senate for four years. Appointed Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairman, as head of his Vice Presidential Candidate Selection Committee. He reportedly sought advice of Franklin Raines on housing and mortgage issues. Raines was Chairman of Fannie Mae when it collapsed and had profited by $90 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie Mae. Obama served as community organizer, trainer, and legal representative for ACORN in his early years and the recent $700 billion bailout legislation that failed in the House of Representatives contained an earmark that would have steered to ACORN 20% of all money returning to the federal government from re-sale of bad loans. Barack opted to avoid returning to Washington to help work on this legislation, returning only when directly requested by President Bush. Obama was very careful to avoid any direct contact with the legislation and studiously avoided providing any specific, detailed input.
George W. Bush- President. Republican. Tried in 2003 and 2004 to get legislation through Congress to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee each time. Democrats on those committees complimented the management of Fannie and Freddie and lauded their efforts to increase the number of loans made to people who would not have qualified under previous lending policies and encouraged them to continue increasing the risky loans.
John McCain- Senator. Republican. Republican candidate for President. Authored legislation in 2005 to strengthen regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee when Democrats in both chambers used parliamentary procedures to prevent committee votes.
Can we draw any conclusions from this list?
-One party set the legal wheels in motion and then protected the processes that allowed the credit melt down.
-One party populated the major credit institutions with party faithfuls who raked millions of dollars out them before they ultimately destroyed them.
-One party and one administration refused to bail out and cover up the looting and collapse of Enron
-One party began trying to head off the problems as early as 2003 and was defeated at every turn by the other party who protected their money makers
-One party has a Presidential candidate that actively alerted the nation to the problems and authored legislation to fix it in 2005 but was stymied by the other party
-One party has a Presidential candidate that, when the scope of the problem became clear, flew back to D.C. and tried to participate- again- in fixing the problem. The other party derided him and ridiculed him before their "plan" collapsed in a humiliating defeat in the House of Representatives
-One party has a Presidential candidate that is so closely tied to the collapse of the credit market through cash donations and the active involvement of key campaign chairmen and advisors that he COULD NOT participate in the fix and kept as much distance between himself and "the problem" as possible.
-One party seems to have a thread of corruption that runs through the very highest levels of it's party and political offices
It's a lengthy list of suspects and conclusions. But it appears there are two suspects you can dismiss from the investigation right off the bat. To sort through and investigate the remaining suspects, it will likely take a Special Prosectuor and a Grand Jury- if there is any national interest in such an investigation.
Labels: $700 Billion, Bailout, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bush, Democrats, Dodd, Fannie Mae, Frank, Franklin Raines, Freddie Mac, Gorelic, Jim Johnson, Lehman, McCain, Obama, Pelin, Pelosi, Reid
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
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Democrats and the War in Iraq- The Big Lie: It's becoming more and more apparent that even if elected, Democrats won't bring the troops home from Iraq any faster than President Bush. In a sudden "awakening", the Editor of the New York Times shares an epiphany in a column titled: "Wrong Way Out of Iraq". I've included the column here and then some of my own comments after:
August 13, 2007
The New York Times
Editorial
Wrong Way Out of Iraq
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise.
There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.
And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
August 13, 2007
The New York Times
Editorial
Wrong Way Out of Iraq
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise.
There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.
And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Alternate Source Link:Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Yes, call it "the big lie". This idea that we can walk off the battlefield while Jihadists still want engage and fight is ludicrous. The idea that we can "bring the war in Iraq to a close".
Americans and the North Koreans "brought the Korean War to a close" and both sides walked off the battlefield. 54 Years later we are still at a stand off with them, exchanging gunfire over the DMZ, reading occasional items in their press about the U.S.S Pueblo, and desperately searching for a way to stop their nuclear weapons program.
Americans "brought the war in Vietnam to a close" in 1975 and the North Vietnamese swept into Saigon, murdering the elected South Vietnamese leaders and imprisoning their military leaders. Oh, and don't forget that little Pol Pot thing where up to 2 million were slaughtered with no one there to prevent it.
The Soviets "brought their war in Afghanistan to a close" and walked off the battlefield and the Taliban was born. Millions were subjugated under a twisted, blasphemer's version of Sharia Law and al-Qaeda eventually found a home and 3,000 Americans eventually paid for this "closure" on 9/11.
Americans "brought the first Gulf War to a close" in 1991 when the U.S. stopped it's advance on Baghdad and walked off the battlefield. After that Saddam Hussein went on a murder spree, slaughtering Shia in Southeast Iraq and Kurds in nothern Iraq. Eventually he began defiantly shooting at U.S. fighters and spy planes patrolling over the No-Fly Zones- zones created by the U.N. to stop the murder of Shia and Kurds.
No, walking off the battlefield and "bringing a war to a close" only works for those who intend to keep fighting after the other side quits. It does not work for those who quit and walk away. When a nation opts to walk off the field in the middle of battle when the opponent intends to continue the fight, or jihad, or the subjugation, or whatever, there is always a bill to pay later..... a word to the wise!
Labels: Barak Obama, Bush, Bush Administration, Clinton, Dem-no-crats, Democrats, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Iraq, McCain, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Rice, Romney, Rudy, Rumsfeld, War in Iraq, War on Terror
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
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Global Warming Myth- Collapse Continues: Al Gore's Global Warming myth is losing steam at a pretty good clip. This information today from the BBC shows larger and larger portions of the populace opting off Gore's bandwagon.
Source Link: Scepticism over Climate Claims
Scepticism' over climate claims
The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".
"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added.
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."
People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.
Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.
"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm
Published: 2007/07/03 00:25:26 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Source Link: Scepticism over Climate Claims
Scepticism' over climate claims
The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".
"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added.
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."
People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.
Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.
"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm
Published: 2007/07/03 00:25:26 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Labels: Al Gore, Concert, Democrats, environmentalist, Global Warming, Liberals, Live Earth
President Bush Commutes Scooter Libby's Jail Term: President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentences and the reactions have been utterly predictable.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats are apoplectic over the commutation ridiculously charging that this turns The Constitution on it's head. Which is weird because it's The Constitution that grants President Bush the unquestioned authority to commute the sentence.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats, particularly Hillary, seem to have a short or non-existent memory on the issue of pardon's. I seem to remember a dust up when Bill Clinton issued a truck full of pardon's for people with extremely dubious characters. There were obvious ties between the pardons of some and their generous campaign contributions to the Clinton Campaign.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Scooter Libby should continue to clear his name through the court system and I fully expect he will. But, since the underlying crime was never proven, and since the actual leaker was never charged in the matter, I hope that President Bush follows through on this action in January of 2009 and grants the full pardon to Scooter Libby if his continued appeals fail.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
I know this will be a hard issue for the Democrat Party to swallow. They never accepted the fact that if Bill Clinton can fire all 90-some Federal Prosecutors (one of which was investigating Bill Clinton in Arkansas), then President Bush is fully allowed to fire eight, two of which had already announced their own decisions to leave. So I'm sure in the face of Bill Clinton's January 2001 "pardon fest", they'll also explode in hypocrisy over the communtation of Mr. Libby's jail term.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats so far have also predictably ignored the fact that President Bush has, so far, left the guilty verdict, the fine, and the probation in tact. This is standard fare for the Democrat Party. Distort a situation - be it federal prosecutors or the Libby communtation - let the liberal leaning media run with it and continue the distortion, and next will be the equally predictable attack on Fox News for presenting the entire story with all the facts.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
It's almost sad. This is what the Democrat Party- the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy- is reduced to. With no new issues and no platform to present and actually run on, they are reduced to class warfare and obfuscation in hopes of confusing the voters and convincing us to vote against some perceived failing of the conservative ideology. Their last big idea was the project to land a man on the moon and bring him safely home. That would be what- 45 years ago? Very sad.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
As we watch the hysteria build and the hyperbole spin out of control over the Libby communtation, let's keep one fact up in mind:
RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats are apoplectic over the commutation ridiculously charging that this turns The Constitution on it's head. Which is weird because it's The Constitution that grants President Bush the unquestioned authority to commute the sentence.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats, particularly Hillary, seem to have a short or non-existent memory on the issue of pardon's. I seem to remember a dust up when Bill Clinton issued a truck full of pardon's for people with extremely dubious characters. There were obvious ties between the pardons of some and their generous campaign contributions to the Clinton Campaign.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Scooter Libby should continue to clear his name through the court system and I fully expect he will. But, since the underlying crime was never proven, and since the actual leaker was never charged in the matter, I hope that President Bush follows through on this action in January of 2009 and grants the full pardon to Scooter Libby if his continued appeals fail.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
I know this will be a hard issue for the Democrat Party to swallow. They never accepted the fact that if Bill Clinton can fire all 90-some Federal Prosecutors (one of which was investigating Bill Clinton in Arkansas), then President Bush is fully allowed to fire eight, two of which had already announced their own decisions to leave. So I'm sure in the face of Bill Clinton's January 2001 "pardon fest", they'll also explode in hypocrisy over the communtation of Mr. Libby's jail term.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats so far have also predictably ignored the fact that President Bush has, so far, left the guilty verdict, the fine, and the probation in tact. This is standard fare for the Democrat Party. Distort a situation - be it federal prosecutors or the Libby communtation - let the liberal leaning media run with it and continue the distortion, and next will be the equally predictable attack on Fox News for presenting the entire story with all the facts.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
It's almost sad. This is what the Democrat Party- the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy- is reduced to. With no new issues and no platform to present and actually run on, they are reduced to class warfare and obfuscation in hopes of confusing the voters and convincing us to vote against some perceived failing of the conservative ideology. Their last big idea was the project to land a man on the moon and bring him safely home. That would be what- 45 years ago? Very sad.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
As we watch the hysteria build and the hyperbole spin out of control over the Libby communtation, let's keep one fact up in mind:
RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED
Labels: Armitage, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, commute, Democrats, Fitzgerald, Jail, Libby, Mark Rich, Novak, Pardon, Scooter, sentence
Monday, May 21, 2007
American Legion Commander Speakes Out: The National Commander of the American Legion responds by letter to Sen. Edwards' cheap, theatric call to use Memorial Day as a day of protest. The letter, from the American Legion web site:
Message to America: Respect Memorial Day
By National Commander Paul A. Morin
Here is a surprise, I am not going to defend the Iraq war. I won’t even explain the importance of the war on terrorism. VA budget? Not today. That’s because this column is about Memorial Day, a hallowed day that should be about honoring the more than one million men and women who died in the service of this nation in wars and conflicts dating back to 1775. It should be above politics. Period. Yet one presidential candidate has blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day.
I recently received an e-mail from a group called "Supportthetroopsendthewar.com." It included a video of former Sen. John Edwards. He calls on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to "bring an end to this war." Shockingly, the video is titled "A Memorial Day Message from John Edwards," with the smoking gun note, "Paid for by John Edwards for President." Moreover, the e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message "Support the troops, End the War" to local Memorial Day parades. Revolting is a kind word for it. It’s as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone. Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes.
But the e-mail makes me sick nonetheless. It needs to stop. This isn’t about Edwards, it’s about everybody. As national commander of The American Legion, I implore all candidates to refrain from politicking on Memorial Day. The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. The sacrifice is the same whether it’s for a "popular war" or an unpopular one. Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes. It brings to mind the words of Army Sergeant First Class Jack Robison, who recently wrote from Iraq, "Sometimes I think God must be creating an elite unit in heaven, because He only seems to select the very best soldiers to bring home early." If you want to honor these heroes, visit a veterans cemetery on Memorial Day.
Attend a parade without the divisive political signs. Make cards for the comrades of the fallen that are recuperating in military and VA hospitals. Lay a wreath at the stone of a departed hero. We Americans need to remember why Memorial Day is special. It’s not about picnics or trips to the beach. It’s not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It’s not about supporting political candidates. It’s about honor, duty and the ultimate sacrifice. It’s about people who have decided that the United States is worth dying for
Message to America: Respect Memorial Day
By National Commander Paul A. Morin
Here is a surprise, I am not going to defend the Iraq war. I won’t even explain the importance of the war on terrorism. VA budget? Not today. That’s because this column is about Memorial Day, a hallowed day that should be about honoring the more than one million men and women who died in the service of this nation in wars and conflicts dating back to 1775. It should be above politics. Period. Yet one presidential candidate has blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day.
I recently received an e-mail from a group called "Supportthetroopsendthewar.com." It included a video of former Sen. John Edwards. He calls on Americans to use Memorial Day weekend as a time to "bring an end to this war." Shockingly, the video is titled "A Memorial Day Message from John Edwards," with the smoking gun note, "Paid for by John Edwards for President." Moreover, the e-mail recommends that Americans bring signs with the message "Support the troops, End the War" to local Memorial Day parades. Revolting is a kind word for it. It’s as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone. Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes.
But the e-mail makes me sick nonetheless. It needs to stop. This isn’t about Edwards, it’s about everybody. As national commander of The American Legion, I implore all candidates to refrain from politicking on Memorial Day. The families of those killed in war should not be led to believe that their loved ones died for a less-than-worthy cause. They died because they took an oath to defend this nation and its Constitution. The sacrifice is the same whether it’s for a "popular war" or an unpopular one. Memorial Day should be an occasion to bring Americans together to honor these heroes. It brings to mind the words of Army Sergeant First Class Jack Robison, who recently wrote from Iraq, "Sometimes I think God must be creating an elite unit in heaven, because He only seems to select the very best soldiers to bring home early." If you want to honor these heroes, visit a veterans cemetery on Memorial Day.
Attend a parade without the divisive political signs. Make cards for the comrades of the fallen that are recuperating in military and VA hospitals. Lay a wreath at the stone of a departed hero. We Americans need to remember why Memorial Day is special. It’s not about picnics or trips to the beach. It’s not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It’s not about supporting political candidates. It’s about honor, duty and the ultimate sacrifice. It’s about people who have decided that the United States is worth dying for
Labels: American Legion, Democrats, Edwards, Iraq, John Edwards, Memorial Day, Presidential Candidates, War in Iraq
The Worst President in History: Now this is just hilarious! Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Freakin' Carter called President Bush the worst president in history! I just can't pass up the opportunity to comment on this one! Jimmy Carter who created and gave us the modern day Iran! Maybe we should see if Bill Clinton who gave us the modern day al-Qaeda agrees!
Jimmy Carter, who gave us gas lines, darkened Christmas Trees, a Misery Index, and 21% interest honestly attempts to paint George W. Bush as not just a worse president, but the worst president in history!
I would suggest the only true runner-up to Jimmy Carter for this title is ex-President Clinton who gave us Perjury (admitted and so found in court), Ruby Ridge, Waco, World Trade Center 1, Blackhawk Down (Mogadishu), the U.S.S. Cole, Kobar Towers, two wars in the Balkans, Albanian Muslim refugees that come to the U.S. to plot attacks against Ft. Dix, sex in the Oval Office, the DotCom bubble, Ken Lay and Enron, and school uniforms.
Yep, who says there's no natural comedy in politics!
Jimmy Carter, who gave us gas lines, darkened Christmas Trees, a Misery Index, and 21% interest honestly attempts to paint George W. Bush as not just a worse president, but the worst president in history!
I would suggest the only true runner-up to Jimmy Carter for this title is ex-President Clinton who gave us Perjury (admitted and so found in court), Ruby Ridge, Waco, World Trade Center 1, Blackhawk Down (Mogadishu), the U.S.S. Cole, Kobar Towers, two wars in the Balkans, Albanian Muslim refugees that come to the U.S. to plot attacks against Ft. Dix, sex in the Oval Office, the DotCom bubble, Ken Lay and Enron, and school uniforms.
Yep, who says there's no natural comedy in politics!
Labels: al-Qaeda, Bush, Democrats, Edwards, history, hostages, Iran, Jimmy Carter, Murtha, Pelosi, President, Reid, W.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
bin Laden, Jihadists Winning?: Personally, I think yes. But I have an article that supports my position. The item is by Bernard Lewis, a leading expert on the Middle East and on Islam.
Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Labels: al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Democrats, Hoyer, Iraq, jihadists, Levin, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War on Terror
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Democrat Congress- Approval Plunge Continues: All those who continue to believe the "country has turned anti-war" should take note of the latest Gallup Poll that shows the Congressional approval ratings continuing their plunge. Congressional approval is now below that of George W. Bush. The only thing Congress has done over the last several weeks has been to delay funding the troops in the field.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Labels: approval, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, Funding, Hillary, Hoyer, Iraq, Levin, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Poll, ratings, Reid, War
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Congressional Approval- The Downward Slide Continues: Associated Press documents the further decline in Democrat Congressional approval ratings in the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html
The Democrat Party is in full denial over the results of the Congressional elections last November. They cannot accept the Republican base "fired" a spineless, unprincipled, so-called Republican congress. They also will not accept the notion that Americans want to WIN in Iraq, NOT surrender unconditionally! What is my proof you might ask? I would offer this simple fact; Joe Lieberman would have never been elected as a pro-victory-in-Iraq Independent candidate in the Senate if the sentiment was for surrender and withdrawl.
Interpret it as you will, but the article follows:
Poll: Congress' Approval Same As Bush
Friday May 11, 2007 11:16 AM
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.
An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.
The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.
``It's mostly Iraq'' plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. ``These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an R or a D next to your name.''
Democrats agree the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year's session of Congress while producing little more than this month's Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say.
``People are unhappy, there hasn't been a lot of change in direction, for example in Iraq,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of House Democrats' campaign effort.
The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6625294,00.html
The Democrat Party is in full denial over the results of the Congressional elections last November. They cannot accept the Republican base "fired" a spineless, unprincipled, so-called Republican congress. They also will not accept the notion that Americans want to WIN in Iraq, NOT surrender unconditionally! What is my proof you might ask? I would offer this simple fact; Joe Lieberman would have never been elected as a pro-victory-in-Iraq Independent candidate in the Senate if the sentiment was for surrender and withdrawl.
Interpret it as you will, but the article follows:
Poll: Congress' Approval Same As Bush
Friday May 11, 2007 11:16 AM
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.
An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.
The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.
``It's mostly Iraq'' plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. ``These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an R or a D next to your name.''
Democrats agree the problem is largely Iraq, which has dominated this year's session of Congress while producing little more than this month's Bush veto of a bill requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It has also overshadowed House-passed bills on stem cell research, student loans and other subjects that the White House opposes, they say.
``People are unhappy, there hasn't been a lot of change in direction, for example in Iraq,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of House Democrats' campaign effort.
The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Labels: approval, Congress, congressional, Democrats, election, Funding, funds, House of Representatives, Hoyer, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Poll, Reid, Senate, support, surrender, troops, withdrawl
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Democrats, Greensburg, and Iraq- Kaboom!: There they go again! The Democrats fell for some of their own distortion today as they tried desperately to exploit the Greensburg tornado victims to make an anti-war political point!
Kathleen Sebelius (Dem), Governor of Kansas, announced the state was unable to respond quickly to the Greensburg disaster because the National Guard was deployed to Iraq. Harry Reid, (D-Nv) quickly followed suit by running to the floor of the Senate and denouncing the war in Iraq. He cited the Sebelius statement and the poor victims of the Greensburg disaster in his speech condemning (again... and again...) the war.
The problem? It wasn't true. The Adjutant General of the Kansas Guard reported he had the necessary equipment and personnel to respond. The first responders stated the response was swift and was meeting the needs. Turns out less than 20% of the Kansas Guard resources are deployed- equipment and/or personnel!
The Democrat knee-jerk response to use the victims of the Greensburg tornado to condemn President Bush and the war blew up in their faces. Luckily cooler heads prevailed and the truth came out. While Gov. Sebelius has back-peddled her original statement, Sen. Reid has not. His motto? "No lie too big, and no facts will impede any and all Democrat efforts to smear President Bush. Truth be damned, full speed ahead!"
Kathleen Sebelius (Dem), Governor of Kansas, announced the state was unable to respond quickly to the Greensburg disaster because the National Guard was deployed to Iraq. Harry Reid, (D-Nv) quickly followed suit by running to the floor of the Senate and denouncing the war in Iraq. He cited the Sebelius statement and the poor victims of the Greensburg disaster in his speech condemning (again... and again...) the war.
The problem? It wasn't true. The Adjutant General of the Kansas Guard reported he had the necessary equipment and personnel to respond. The first responders stated the response was swift and was meeting the needs. Turns out less than 20% of the Kansas Guard resources are deployed- equipment and/or personnel!
The Democrat knee-jerk response to use the victims of the Greensburg tornado to condemn President Bush and the war blew up in their faces. Luckily cooler heads prevailed and the truth came out. While Gov. Sebelius has back-peddled her original statement, Sen. Reid has not. His motto? "No lie too big, and no facts will impede any and all Democrat efforts to smear President Bush. Truth be damned, full speed ahead!"
Labels: Democrats, exploit, Greensburg, Kansas, Reid, Sebelius, tornado
