Ministers seek deal with Iran for captives
By Sean Rayment, Tim Shipman and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph
Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission. (in other words admit that they were wrong and allow Iran a pass on an act of war)
The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Teheran, as a special envoy of the Government, to deliver a public assurance that officials hope will end the diplomatic standoff.
The renewed search for a solution was given greater urgency when a senior Iranian official said that moves had begun to put the 15 British captives on trial. (another violation of the Geneva Conventions As we give terrorists rights under these conventions the people that supply the terrorists piss on them)
Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, announced: "Legal moves to determine the guilt of the British sailors have been launched." In an interview with a Russian television channel, he said: "The legal process is going on and has to be completed and if they are found guilty they will face punishment." (exicution)
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to make a formal statement on the crisis on Tuesday. Last night, he denounced Britain's failure to apologise and decision to go to the United Nations: "This is not the legal and logical way." (the logical way would be to bomb the shit out of them)
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said: "Everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it. We want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible." (ah yes the sounds of the dhimmie)
Defence officials emphasised that they were not preparing to concede that the two British boats detained nine days ago were at fault. But one said: "We are quite prepared to give the Iranians a guarantee that we would never knowingly enter their waters without their permission, now or in the future. (this shows that the Brits have the same problem in their Parliment that we have with the Democrats in ours)
We are not apologising, nor are we saying that we entered their waters in the first place. (yes you are in the eyes of the Arabs you ASSHOLE) But it may offer a route out of the crisis."
Details of the strategy emerged as a former Falklands War commander expressed fury at how the sailors surrendered to Iranian gunboats without a fight.
Maj Gen Julian Thompson called for a review of the Navy's rules of engagement, dictated by the United Nations, that they cannot open fire unless they are shot at first. "In my view this thing is a complete cock-up," he said. (I like this guy)
"I want to know why the Marines didn't open fire or put up some sort of fight. My fear is that they didn't have the right rules of engagement, which would allow them to do this."
A former Iranian ambassador to the UN, Sayed Rajai Korasani, said that Britain should be more conciliatory and called for a delegation of MPs to seek the handover of the sailors. (yeah cut Blair out of the picture and let Parliment deal with the issue)
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's most extensive comments on the crisis closely followed tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening.
"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," the country's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
The European Union demanded Friday that Iran immediately and unconditionally release the Britons and warned of unspecified "appropriate measures" if Tehran does not comply. (gee I guess that means the EU might what sell them less arms...LOL)
The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain. (not quite butthead those are coalition forces, the only reason the US has not commenced bombing runs is the Brits have asked us to wait. We can only hope that they grow tired of this farce)
Iran
British Sailors
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Pelosi says Screw the British Sailors, But makes time to VISIT our ENEMIES
A resolution has been proposed in the House of Representatives that condemns Iran for the seizure of British sailors and marines, expresses support for our British allies, and demands that the UN condemn Irans actions. This resolution will never see the light of day though because Ms. Pelousy has blocked it from coming up for a vote. I guess since our coalition wasn't good enough for her she can't even muster support for Americas staunchist ally.Earlier today, Congressman Eric Cantor wrote the following letter to Pelosi:
Dear Madam Speaker:
Fifteen kidnapped British marines and sailors recently became the latest victims of a systematic Iranian campaign of terror and international defiance. The illegal seizure of the British forces is a signal that Iran views us as powerless to prevent it from realizing its aggressive ambitions.
For the sake of our standing in the world, our allies and most importantly the 15 British personnel and their families, I urge you to bring H. Res. 267 to the floor today before we adjourn. The resolution calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the British marines and sailors. It would also call on the U.N. Security Council to not only condemn the seizure, but to explore harsher sanctions to counter the growing Iranian threat.
A Republican Congressional staffer writes:
It is simply staggering to me that Pelosi refuses to stand beside America's closest ally. I literally would not have thought this possible, until I saw it this week.
hattip to PowerLine
UPDATE: Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends."
"This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.
Pelousy
British Sailors
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends."
"This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.
Pelousy
British Sailors
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Bribes to kill our Soldiers and commit Genocide on the Iraqi People
Here is a list of the Bribes in the Emergency Supplemental for our Troops. It cost over 20 Billion in bribes to add a line in the spending bill to set a date to pull our troops out just in time for the 08 election. The Dems want genocide to be taking place in Iraq in time for the election so that they can blame the Republicans. Millions to die so Hillary can be President....
Thanks to Flopping Aces for the list.
$24 million for funding for sugar beets.
$3 million for funding for sugar cane (goes to one Hawaiian co-op).
$20 million for insect infestation damage reimbursements in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.
$2.1 billion for crop production losses.
$1.5 billion for livestock production losses.
$100 million for Dairy Production Losses.
$13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program.
$32 million for Livestock Indemnity Program.
$40 million for the Tree Assistance Program.
$100 million for Small Agricultural Dependent Businesses.
$6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land.
$35 million for emergency conservation program.
$50 million for the emergency watershed program.
$115 million for the conservation security program.
$18 million for drought assistance in upper Great Plains/South West.
Provision that extends the availability by a year $3.5 million in funding for guided tours of the Capitol. Also a provision allows transfer of funds from holiday ornament sales in the Senate gift shop.
$165.9 million for fisheries disaster relief, funded through NOAA (including $60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath Basin region).
$12 million for forest service money (requested by the president in the non-emergency FY2008 budget).
$425 million for education grants for rural areas (Secure Rural Schools program).
$640 million for LIHEAP.
$25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Power Plant.
$388.9 million for funding for backlog of old Department of Transportation projects.
$22.8 million for geothermal research and development.
$500 million for wildland fire management.
$13 million for mine safety technology research.
$31 million for one month extension of Milk Income Loss Contract program (MILC)
$50 million for fisheries disaster mitigation fund.
$100 million for security at the Presidential Candidate Nominating Conventions
$2 million for the University of Vermont
Democrats
Iraq
Thanks to Flopping Aces for the list.
$24 million for funding for sugar beets.
$3 million for funding for sugar cane (goes to one Hawaiian co-op).
$20 million for insect infestation damage reimbursements in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.
$2.1 billion for crop production losses.
$1.5 billion for livestock production losses.
$100 million for Dairy Production Losses.
$13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program.
$32 million for Livestock Indemnity Program.
$40 million for the Tree Assistance Program.
$100 million for Small Agricultural Dependent Businesses.
$6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land.
$35 million for emergency conservation program.
$50 million for the emergency watershed program.
$115 million for the conservation security program.
$18 million for drought assistance in upper Great Plains/South West.
Provision that extends the availability by a year $3.5 million in funding for guided tours of the Capitol. Also a provision allows transfer of funds from holiday ornament sales in the Senate gift shop.
$165.9 million for fisheries disaster relief, funded through NOAA (including $60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath Basin region).
$12 million for forest service money (requested by the president in the non-emergency FY2008 budget).
$425 million for education grants for rural areas (Secure Rural Schools program).
$640 million for LIHEAP.
$25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Power Plant.
$388.9 million for funding for backlog of old Department of Transportation projects.
$22.8 million for geothermal research and development.
$500 million for wildland fire management.
$13 million for mine safety technology research.
$31 million for one month extension of Milk Income Loss Contract program (MILC)
$50 million for fisheries disaster mitigation fund.
$100 million for security at the Presidential Candidate Nominating Conventions
$2 million for the University of Vermont
Democrats
Iraq
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Why Campaign Money may not mean shit
Everyone is watching the war chests of the candidates. Who has got how many millions who isn't making thier goals etc etc etc. The truth of the matter is none of that means shit. There are two undeclared candidates that the base pundits will vote for even if they don't spend a dime. What the MSM refuses to spell out is the only people that vote in primaries are the base. The base will accept Rudy, They don't trust Romney, and McCain can't get elected if he was the only one in the room. That gives it to Rudy by default. Two people however are going to change that dynamic drasticly between now and October Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. The base needs no campaign commercials from either man. We know them and we trust them. The decision will come down to one factor, can Newt be elected. The press and the left hate him. That may make the base go with Thompson between the two. Not that what either of those two groups says matters but it is a hurdle that the base may not want to take a chance with when we are at war. A democrat can not be our next President.
Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson is an excellant communicater with the brass balls to say the truth, something that he shares with Newt. He also comes with an impressive record including leading the fight that abolished the special prosecuter provisions. here is a brief background.
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was the Senate Watergate Committee's chief minority counsel in 1973 and 1974. In 1975 he wrote a Watergate memoir entitled "At That Point in Time." Thompson chaired the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which held hearings in 1997 on the 1996 campaign finance controversies, from 1997 to 2001.
After Watergate, Thompson served as special counsel to former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander and special counsel to both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In his first foray into electoral politics, in 1994, he won the special election for former vice president Al Gore's Senate seat.
Thompson is also an actor, with roles in 18 feature films including "In the Line of Fire," "No Way Out," "Cape Fear," "The Hunt for Red October" and "Days of Thunder." He has also appeared in television movies and series including "Matlock" and "Roseanne." Thompson lives in Washington, D.C., and Nashville. After the death of his adult daughter in 2002, Thompson decided not to seek reelection.
Thompson is currently a visiting fellow for the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence (China, North Korea, and Russia.) Thompson is also signed as a public speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureau.
Thompson is also a special program host and senior analyst for ABC News Radio and fills in for Paul Harvey.
Newt Gingrich
Probably the best man for the job. No one can match his wit or depth of knowledge in the political arena. I would gladly follow where ever he leads.
In the 1994 campaign season, in an effort to offer a concrete alternative to shifting Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party, Gingrich presented Richard Armey's and his Contract with America. The contract was signed by himself and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues with broad popular support, including welfare reform, term limits, tougher crime laws, and a balanced budget law, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in U.N. missions. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
Longtime House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois had not run for re-election in 1994, giving Gingrich, as the highest-ranking Republican returning to Congress, the inside track to becoming Speaker. Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Congress fulfilled Gingrich's Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract's issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, even though most legislation was held up in the Senate, vetoed by President Bill Clinton, or substantially altered in negotiations with Clinton. However, most parts of the Contract eventually became law in some fashion and represented a dramatic departure from the legislative goals and priorities of previous Congresses. See Implementation of the Contract for a detailed discussion of what was and was not enacted.
The Contract was criticized by the Sierra Club and by Mother Jones magazine as a Trojan horse tactic that, while deploying the rhetoric of reform, would have the real effect of allowing corporate polluters to profit at the expense of the environment;[20] It was referred to by opponents, including President Clinton, as the "Contract on America".[citation needed]
One thing I would really enjoy is watching these two men debate at Cooper Union college
Newt Gingrich
Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson is an excellant communicater with the brass balls to say the truth, something that he shares with Newt. He also comes with an impressive record including leading the fight that abolished the special prosecuter provisions. here is a brief background.
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) was the Senate Watergate Committee's chief minority counsel in 1973 and 1974. In 1975 he wrote a Watergate memoir entitled "At That Point in Time." Thompson chaired the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which held hearings in 1997 on the 1996 campaign finance controversies, from 1997 to 2001.After Watergate, Thompson served as special counsel to former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander and special counsel to both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In his first foray into electoral politics, in 1994, he won the special election for former vice president Al Gore's Senate seat.
Thompson is also an actor, with roles in 18 feature films including "In the Line of Fire," "No Way Out," "Cape Fear," "The Hunt for Red October" and "Days of Thunder." He has also appeared in television movies and series including "Matlock" and "Roseanne." Thompson lives in Washington, D.C., and Nashville. After the death of his adult daughter in 2002, Thompson decided not to seek reelection.
Thompson is currently a visiting fellow for the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence (China, North Korea, and Russia.) Thompson is also signed as a public speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureau.
Thompson is also a special program host and senior analyst for ABC News Radio and fills in for Paul Harvey.
Newt Gingrich
Probably the best man for the job. No one can match his wit or depth of knowledge in the political arena. I would gladly follow where ever he leads.In the 1994 campaign season, in an effort to offer a concrete alternative to shifting Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party, Gingrich presented Richard Armey's and his Contract with America. The contract was signed by himself and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues with broad popular support, including welfare reform, term limits, tougher crime laws, and a balanced budget law, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in U.N. missions. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
Longtime House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois had not run for re-election in 1994, giving Gingrich, as the highest-ranking Republican returning to Congress, the inside track to becoming Speaker. Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Congress fulfilled Gingrich's Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract's issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, even though most legislation was held up in the Senate, vetoed by President Bill Clinton, or substantially altered in negotiations with Clinton. However, most parts of the Contract eventually became law in some fashion and represented a dramatic departure from the legislative goals and priorities of previous Congresses. See Implementation of the Contract for a detailed discussion of what was and was not enacted.
The Contract was criticized by the Sierra Club and by Mother Jones magazine as a Trojan horse tactic that, while deploying the rhetoric of reform, would have the real effect of allowing corporate polluters to profit at the expense of the environment;[20] It was referred to by opponents, including President Clinton, as the "Contract on America".[citation needed]
One thing I would really enjoy is watching these two men debate at Cooper Union college
Newt Gingrich
Fred Thompson
Saturday, March 24, 2007
"May you live in interesting times"
As the world spins out of control, aren't we lucky to be living the old chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"
The mad little persian is playing russian roulett with the Brits and the US. Instead of attending the UN meeting where he knew sanctions were going to be issued to him directly, he stages the kidnaping of British Sailors. Instead of loosing face and his Islamic Machismo by being bitch slapped by the impotent Security Counsel. He is viewed as the master Islamic Jihadist leader of the Arab world. Pissing on the world body while spitting in the eye of Satans brother the Brits. He is Imamadjihad supreme commander of Mohameds Holy Army of Terror, gathering the sacred nuclear fire to scorch the earth clean of the infidels. Purrifying the world for the return of the savior the Twelth Imam. BLAH. BLAH BLAH
When are we going to kill the little prick?
No doubt about it the mad little persian is upping the stakes in the game. The Surge contrary to what you see on the news is working. The tide is starting to turn in Iraq. Mookie Al-Sadre has fled the country, and the civilians are feeding our troops intel. Iran see's that the US is pushing back. Unlike the Press and the Defeaticrats he understands the progress and instead of taking a second setback from the UN he has upped the stakes pulling this stunt to rally the barbarian hordes of Mohamedins to him. The question is what's the next move will he flinch in this game of chicken or will the Brits? Depending on the treatment and whether or not these hostages are released will decide which direction this goes.
If he makes a spectacle of these Sailors will Blair react with force? The stakes are higher than they were the last time he took British hostages and paraded them on TV. If they have truely been moved to Tehran than a rescue strike is out of the question. How he treats them and how he reacts to the Sanctions will dictate our response. We will respond with the Brits in that there is no doubt. It is our coalition, therefore this attack is also an attack on us.
Or is this a tragic blessing, oppening the door for the long overdue Airstrikes into Iran. That is the force option. Hit the Oil Fields, the Refinery, and the Nuclear sites crippling Irans economy. Of course they will stike back at us in Iraq and Israel. They might even activate their Hezzbooha and Hamass sleeper cells here and in the UK. This could get real bloody real fast.
As the man said, "May you live in Interesting Times"
Iran
World War
The mad little persian is playing russian roulett with the Brits and the US. Instead of attending the UN meeting where he knew sanctions were going to be issued to him directly, he stages the kidnaping of British Sailors. Instead of loosing face and his Islamic Machismo by being bitch slapped by the impotent Security Counsel. He is viewed as the master Islamic Jihadist leader of the Arab world. Pissing on the world body while spitting in the eye of Satans brother the Brits. He is Imamadjihad supreme commander of Mohameds Holy Army of Terror, gathering the sacred nuclear fire to scorch the earth clean of the infidels. Purrifying the world for the return of the savior the Twelth Imam. BLAH. BLAH BLAH
When are we going to kill the little prick?
No doubt about it the mad little persian is upping the stakes in the game. The Surge contrary to what you see on the news is working. The tide is starting to turn in Iraq. Mookie Al-Sadre has fled the country, and the civilians are feeding our troops intel. Iran see's that the US is pushing back. Unlike the Press and the Defeaticrats he understands the progress and instead of taking a second setback from the UN he has upped the stakes pulling this stunt to rally the barbarian hordes of Mohamedins to him. The question is what's the next move will he flinch in this game of chicken or will the Brits? Depending on the treatment and whether or not these hostages are released will decide which direction this goes.
If he makes a spectacle of these Sailors will Blair react with force? The stakes are higher than they were the last time he took British hostages and paraded them on TV. If they have truely been moved to Tehran than a rescue strike is out of the question. How he treats them and how he reacts to the Sanctions will dictate our response. We will respond with the Brits in that there is no doubt. It is our coalition, therefore this attack is also an attack on us.
Or is this a tragic blessing, oppening the door for the long overdue Airstrikes into Iran. That is the force option. Hit the Oil Fields, the Refinery, and the Nuclear sites crippling Irans economy. Of course they will stike back at us in Iraq and Israel. They might even activate their Hezzbooha and Hamass sleeper cells here and in the UK. This could get real bloody real fast.
As the man said, "May you live in Interesting Times"
Iran
World War
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Pope of Global Warming
Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment
March 20, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano – 8:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET. (See "FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming" )
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.
As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.
The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing.
It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.
The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?
Stay tuned…
March 20, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano – 8:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET. (See "FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming" )
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.
As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.
The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing.
It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.
The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?
Stay tuned…
Scary Headlines from DrudgeGORE SWEARS: 'Crisis threatens the survival of our civilization'... *'Planetary Emergency'... **Dire warnings... GOP Rep.: 'You're totally wrong'... Dem Rep.: 'You are a prophet'...GOP: GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE...BOXER: YOU HAVE GIVEN US HOPE...Katie Couric: Gore makes triumphant return, scientific consensus is clear...
Related Links:
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"
Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
# # #
Gore
Global Warming
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Bush Tells Congress F U
Bush Warns Dems to Take Offer in Firings
Mar 20 05:59 PM US/Eastern
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.
Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.
"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."
He added that federal prosecutors work for him and it is natural to consider replacing them. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper," the president said.
Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," Bush said.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.
Several Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards, have called for Gonzales' ouster or resignation. So have a handful of Republican lawmakers.
"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney who spent much of Monday evening paging through 3,000 documents released by the Justice Department.
Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies—but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.
The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.
"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."
Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.
"If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, spoke dismissively of the deal offered by the White House:
"It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here."
Even without oaths, Bush aides would be legally required to tell the truth to Congress. But without a transcript of their comments, "it would be almost meaningless to say that they would be under some kind of legal sanction," Schumer complained.
Fielding's meeting on Capitol Hill came a few hours after Bush spoke with Gonzales in an early morning phone call—their first conversation since the president had acknowledged mistakes by his longtime friend and lawmakers of both parties had called for Gonzales' ouster.
The White House offered to arrange interviews with Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.
"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas," Fielding said in a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary committees and their ranking Republicans.
He said documents released by the Justice Department "do not reflect that any U.S. attorney was replaced to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation or for any other improper reason."
___
Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.
UPDATE: Congress also violated the constitution with two other gems today 1) The passed 94 to 2 to put 120 day time limit on how long the president gets to appoint a Federal Prosecuter or it falls to a Federal Judge to appoint a permanent replacement, which is a direct violation of the separation of powers. Only the President can appoint a member of the executive branch period. and 2) They are trying by procedure to amend the constitution to make DC a state with 2 senators and a congressman, never mind that DC is 90% Democrat and 30% of the adults are illiterate. You can only amend the constitution with approval of the states.
These idiots don't even know what's in the document that they swore to uphold and protect!
Bush
Congress
Monday, March 19, 2007
Pelosi Buying Votes to De-Fund Our Soldiers
'Peanuts' for Petraeus
Everybody's a General in the Army called Congress.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
To understand why the Founders put Presidents in charge of war fighting, look no further than the supplemental war spending bill now moving through the House. Everybody's a four-star in Congress's Army, and every general wants his own command, especially if it includes cash for the troops, er, campaign contributors. Too bad none of this bears any relation to what real General David Petraeus is trying to accomplish in Iraq.
Not that we don't sympathize with Defense Secretary Nancy Pelosi. She won the majority in part by riding antiwar sentiment, and now her antiwar ranks are demanding satisfaction. So she's moved beyond the political evasion of "non-binding" resolutions and is trying to attach binding legal restrictions in spending bills on President Bush's ability to conduct the war. This is the strategy she and
General Jack Murtha have worked out.
Trouble is, some of her sincere antiwar Members don't think even this goes far enough and want to cut off funding for the war immediately. (Wisconsin Democrat David Obey recently referred to this crowd as "idiot liberals," a phrase we've often longed to use but thought a tad unsubtle.)
And double trouble is, Speaker Pelosi also has more-moderate Members from swing districts who wouldn't be caught dead voting to de-fund the troops. They don't want to be seen "micromanaging" the war either, to quote Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper's apt word. This angst was also on display this week in the Senate, which rejected similar stop-the-war-now language as all but one Republican held and three Democrats defected.
So what's a leader of Congress to do to get a majority? You know the answer: Let the vote-buying begin!
Thus has Mr. Bush's request for $100 billion to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus $3 billion to replenish the disaster-relief fund, devolved into a $124.6 billion logrolling extravaganza. You can get the flavor from the bill's very first words on page two: "Title I--Supplemental Appropriations for the Global War on Terror Chapter 1 Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service." Forget the Marines; send in the meat inspectors.
This bill has everything the modern military doesn't need. There's $25 million for spinach, designed to attract the vote of Sam Farr, a California farm-region liberal. Perhaps spinach growers who lost business due to last year's E. coli scare need this taxpayer bailout, but it won't intimidate the Taliban unless Mr. Farr plans to draft Popeye.
Other lowlights include $20 million to restore farmland damaged by freezing temperatures, and $1.48 billion for livestock farmers. And don't forget the $74 million "to ensure proper storage for peanuts," an urgent national-security need. This happens to be about the same amount that House Democrats propose to increase spending for operations of the Army Reserve, so it's good to see Congress has its priorities in order.
Then there are the provisions to raise the minimum wage, at one pace for the continental U.S. but at a separate, slower pace for the Northern Mariana Islands. And $500 million for "urgent wildland fire suppression"--that's forest fires, not weapons fire. There's so much more, if only the press corps would take the time to look.
This pork-barrel blowout is grounds enough for a Presidential veto. But the vote-buying is more important for what it says about Congress and the way it wants to micromanage the war. Any legislature is essentially a committee of special interests, each of which wants to be massaged. This is true of war strategy as much as farm policy. The goal isn't victory in Iraq, but "victory" on Capitol Hill, which means cobbling together a majority of 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate. Logrolling and micromanagement are two sides of the same coin of the legislative Pentagon.
In any case, Democrats still aren't taking any real war responsibility. Instead of cutting off funds right now, which would at least be a policy, they kick the issue down the road by imposing "benchmarks." So unless the Iraqis meet certain conditions set by Congress by July 1 and October 1 of this year, U.S. troops will have to redeploy at once and finish within 180 days. And even if these earmarks--sorry, benchmarks--are met, all U.S. troops must begin to retreat by March 2008.
All of this is flatly unconstitutional, but far worse it is an insult to the troops in the field. If Iraq's parliament somehow gets bogged down--like Congress?--on de-Baathification or dividing up oil revenues, American troops have to end their mission. So General Petraeus's war strategy is made hostage to two legislatures, in Baghdad and the Beltway.
Once the U.S. retreats, American forces would then be permitted only to fight al Qaeda and "other terrorist organizations with global reach." So the Army Colonel leading a strike brigade would have to think twice, or consult his lawyers, about just what constitutes "global reach." Did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi qualify since he merely called his outfit "al Qaeda in Iraq"? Democrats are trying to appease their antiwar left by attaching a thousand bureaucratic and legal strings, rather than being accountable with an up-or-down funding vote. As Mr. Obey told those "idiot liberals" in a moment of candor caught on camera, he believes this "bill ends the war." Just not honestly.
Meanwhile, on the Baghdad battlefield, General Petraeus is moving ahead and signs of tentative progress are visible. Shiite death squads are laying low or leaving town, so casualties are down. The new oil law looks like a political breakthrough that would share revenues with all parts of Iraq based on population. Success isn't certain, but the Democratic Congress's only contribution is to make victory more difficult.
Pelousy
Defeaticrats
Everybody's a General in the Army called Congress.
Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
To understand why the Founders put Presidents in charge of war fighting, look no further than the supplemental war spending bill now moving through the House. Everybody's a four-star in Congress's Army, and every general wants his own command, especially if it includes cash for the troops, er, campaign contributors. Too bad none of this bears any relation to what real General David Petraeus is trying to accomplish in Iraq.
Not that we don't sympathize with Defense Secretary Nancy Pelosi. She won the majority in part by riding antiwar sentiment, and now her antiwar ranks are demanding satisfaction. So she's moved beyond the political evasion of "non-binding" resolutions and is trying to attach binding legal restrictions in spending bills on President Bush's ability to conduct the war. This is the strategy she and
General Jack Murtha have worked out.Trouble is, some of her sincere antiwar Members don't think even this goes far enough and want to cut off funding for the war immediately. (Wisconsin Democrat David Obey recently referred to this crowd as "idiot liberals," a phrase we've often longed to use but thought a tad unsubtle.)
And double trouble is, Speaker Pelosi also has more-moderate Members from swing districts who wouldn't be caught dead voting to de-fund the troops. They don't want to be seen "micromanaging" the war either, to quote Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper's apt word. This angst was also on display this week in the Senate, which rejected similar stop-the-war-now language as all but one Republican held and three Democrats defected.
So what's a leader of Congress to do to get a majority? You know the answer: Let the vote-buying begin!
Thus has Mr. Bush's request for $100 billion to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus $3 billion to replenish the disaster-relief fund, devolved into a $124.6 billion logrolling extravaganza. You can get the flavor from the bill's very first words on page two: "Title I--Supplemental Appropriations for the Global War on Terror Chapter 1 Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service." Forget the Marines; send in the meat inspectors.
This bill has everything the modern military doesn't need. There's $25 million for spinach, designed to attract the vote of Sam Farr, a California farm-region liberal. Perhaps spinach growers who lost business due to last year's E. coli scare need this taxpayer bailout, but it won't intimidate the Taliban unless Mr. Farr plans to draft Popeye.
Other lowlights include $20 million to restore farmland damaged by freezing temperatures, and $1.48 billion for livestock farmers. And don't forget the $74 million "to ensure proper storage for peanuts," an urgent national-security need. This happens to be about the same amount that House Democrats propose to increase spending for operations of the Army Reserve, so it's good to see Congress has its priorities in order.
Then there are the provisions to raise the minimum wage, at one pace for the continental U.S. but at a separate, slower pace for the Northern Mariana Islands. And $500 million for "urgent wildland fire suppression"--that's forest fires, not weapons fire. There's so much more, if only the press corps would take the time to look.
This pork-barrel blowout is grounds enough for a Presidential veto. But the vote-buying is more important for what it says about Congress and the way it wants to micromanage the war. Any legislature is essentially a committee of special interests, each of which wants to be massaged. This is true of war strategy as much as farm policy. The goal isn't victory in Iraq, but "victory" on Capitol Hill, which means cobbling together a majority of 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate. Logrolling and micromanagement are two sides of the same coin of the legislative Pentagon.
In any case, Democrats still aren't taking any real war responsibility. Instead of cutting off funds right now, which would at least be a policy, they kick the issue down the road by imposing "benchmarks." So unless the Iraqis meet certain conditions set by Congress by July 1 and October 1 of this year, U.S. troops will have to redeploy at once and finish within 180 days. And even if these earmarks--sorry, benchmarks--are met, all U.S. troops must begin to retreat by March 2008.
All of this is flatly unconstitutional, but far worse it is an insult to the troops in the field. If Iraq's parliament somehow gets bogged down--like Congress?--on de-Baathification or dividing up oil revenues, American troops have to end their mission. So General Petraeus's war strategy is made hostage to two legislatures, in Baghdad and the Beltway.
Once the U.S. retreats, American forces would then be permitted only to fight al Qaeda and "other terrorist organizations with global reach." So the Army Colonel leading a strike brigade would have to think twice, or consult his lawyers, about just what constitutes "global reach." Did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi qualify since he merely called his outfit "al Qaeda in Iraq"? Democrats are trying to appease their antiwar left by attaching a thousand bureaucratic and legal strings, rather than being accountable with an up-or-down funding vote. As Mr. Obey told those "idiot liberals" in a moment of candor caught on camera, he believes this "bill ends the war." Just not honestly.
Meanwhile, on the Baghdad battlefield, General Petraeus is moving ahead and signs of tentative progress are visible. Shiite death squads are laying low or leaving town, so casualties are down. The new oil law looks like a political breakthrough that would share revenues with all parts of Iraq based on population. Success isn't certain, but the Democratic Congress's only contribution is to make victory more difficult.
Pelousy
Defeaticrats
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Day in Pictures
Well that was my day at the Rally. After being in surgery 12hrs before I still managed to have wonderfull time in the company of those who understand the threats against us. Oh and it was a blast watching the much smaller crowd of wackos that just have no clue....
Gathering of Eagles
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Gathering of Eagles
'Gathering of Eagles'to protect Vietnam Veterans Wall
What: Gathering of Eagles
When: March 17th, 2007 0700-1600 (7 AM to 4 PM)
Where: The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall, Washington D.C.
Why: To stand silent guard over our nation's memorials, in honor of our fallen, and in solidarity with our armed forces in harm's way today.
Read our mission statement.
For those unable to attend, Mike's America, in a joint blogging effort with Skye at Midnight Blue will be presenting near real time updates from the scene. More information here.
There will also be posts created after we get home from the event by my wife Grizzly Mama and myself The City Troll. The event should prove interesting to say the least. Besides the 3 of us from Philly, We will also be Joined by fellow blogers from Maryland and of course Mikes America out of North Corolina will be there in spirit if not in person. I will be doing a photo post when I get home I'll leave the prose to the ladies.
This is what we will be up against:
The group, led by Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark and their ilk, plan to gather March 17 at the Vietnam Memorial Wall to begin a march to protest America's involvement in the Iraq war. The date marks the fourth anniversary of the war's beginning.
The leftist Web site MarchonPentagon.org describes the anti-war demonstrators this way: "The March on the Pentagon has already attracted more than 1,500 endorsers, including prominent individuals and national and grassroots organizations. Students on college campuses and in high schools will be attending in large numbers. There will be a large turnout from the Muslim and Arab American community, which is organizing throughout the country."
The movement is well-financed. Its sponsor list is lengthy and contains highly recognizable names, as well as those of Fonda and Sheehan:
· Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who offered his services to defend Saddam Hussein)
· Ultra-liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters
· Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
· Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author of "Born on the 4th of July"
· Mahdi Bray, executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
· Waleed Bader, vice chair of the National Council of Arab Americans and former president of Arab Muslim American Federation
· Medea Benjamin, co-founder, CODEPINK and Global Exchange
· Free Palestine Alliance
· Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
· Islamic Political Party of America
· FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front)
· Islamic-National Congress
· Gay Liberation Network
· Muslim Student Association
· Jibril Hough, chairman, Islamic Political Party of America
Gathering of Eagles
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Traitor that would be King....LOL
McCain won’t go clubbing
By Elana Schor
March 13, 2007
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is skipping his fourth conservative gathering in two months, declining an invitation to speak at the Club for Growth’s winter meeting despite his fellow 2008 hopefuls’ commitments to appear.
McCain raised eyebrows in Republican circles and among his own supporters last month by turning down a chance to address the Conservative Political Action Conference, which bills itself as the nation’s largest conservative conference. McCain was also a no-show at the Heritage Foundation’s members’ retreat this year and at the National Review Institute’s conservative summit.
The fiscal hawks at the Club for Growth, led by former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), will hear from several of McCain’s rivals in Florida later this month, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.).
McCain
By Elana Schor
March 13, 2007
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is skipping his fourth conservative gathering in two months, declining an invitation to speak at the Club for Growth’s winter meeting despite his fellow 2008 hopefuls’ commitments to appear.
McCain raised eyebrows in Republican circles and among his own supporters last month by turning down a chance to address the Conservative Political Action Conference, which bills itself as the nation’s largest conservative conference. McCain was also a no-show at the Heritage Foundation’s members’ retreat this year and at the National Review Institute’s conservative summit.
The fiscal hawks at the Club for Growth, led by former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), will hear from several of McCain’s rivals in Florida later this month, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.).
McCain
Sunday, March 11, 2007
A Little Test
Where do you stand on the great and growing gap between traditional American values and the secular liberalism of the left? Take the following test.
Score each statement from 0 to 10 depending on how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Add the score at the end. The higher the score, the more you agree with Americas Natural Majority. The lower the score, the more you disagree with Americas Natural Majority.
___ 1 We should be allowed to say "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
___ 2 Able-bodied people on welfare should be required to work.
___ 3 A person who assaults a pregnant woman and kills the unborn child should be prosecuted for the murder of the child.
___ 4 The United States should put its own interests first and cooperation with international organizations second.
___ 5 I believe in God.
___ 6 I am proud to be an American.
___ 7 Schools should teach new immigrants about American history and values.
___ 8 Every American should learn English.
___ 9 Personal injury Lawyers should get no more than 15% of any jury award.
___ 10 It is possible to use new technology and new science to develop clean, renewable energy that protects the environment and the economy.
___ Add up your score.
If you scored more than 51 points post it in the comment section and see what that score means.
Newt
Score each statement from 0 to 10 depending on how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Add the score at the end. The higher the score, the more you agree with Americas Natural Majority. The lower the score, the more you disagree with Americas Natural Majority.
___ 1 We should be allowed to say "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
___ 2 Able-bodied people on welfare should be required to work.
___ 3 A person who assaults a pregnant woman and kills the unborn child should be prosecuted for the murder of the child.
___ 4 The United States should put its own interests first and cooperation with international organizations second.
___ 5 I believe in God.
___ 6 I am proud to be an American.
___ 7 Schools should teach new immigrants about American history and values.
___ 8 Every American should learn English.
___ 9 Personal injury Lawyers should get no more than 15% of any jury award.
___ 10 It is possible to use new technology and new science to develop clean, renewable energy that protects the environment and the economy.
___ Add up your score.
If you scored more than 51 points post it in the comment section and see what that score means.
Newt
Iran and Democrats Share talking points
The chief Iranian envoy, Abbas Araghchi, said he restated his country's demands for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, which he insisted have made Iraq a magnet for extremists from across the Muslim world.
Those are the same words being spouted By Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and every other Democrat in congress. They also share the desire for our nations defeat in the War on Terror.
Those are the same words being spouted By Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and every other Democrat in congress. They also share the desire for our nations defeat in the War on Terror.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Enemy Within, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.)
all comments in blue are my commentary
What this asshole spells out is the Democrat Plan to commit TREASON at the worst, and a constitutional crises in the least. Read the following story and what you'll find revealed is the Democrat Party Plan to give victory to our enemies. The Democrats only concern is to pull out of Iraq and the war on terror at all costs.
Never mind that such an action would be read by this enemy as a greenlight that they have won in the Middle East, but it would also give them the signal to activate the thousands of sleeper agents that are already here inside the U.S..
The Government knows of at least 12 Hamass and Hezbooha active cells in New York, Flint, Phoenix, L.A., and Philly. These are groups that train members to pack themselves with explosives and detonate themselves in Subways, on Buses and in Malls.
That is the alternative to the War on Terror that the Democrats are going to bring on in replace of fighting in Iraq. No matter what we do, Fight them or Retreat. They will continue to fight us. You can not achieve peace by choosing not to fight. We can not choose for the enemy. They have already chosen to kill us, period. The only way to stop them is to fight them or die.
The Democrats are choosing for YOU, and they choose that you should die.
Obey berates woman over war funding, later apologizes
By Jeremy Jacobs and Susan Crabtree
March 09, 2007
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) berated a woman who approached him in a Congressional corridor, claiming that “idiot liberals” don’t understand the war supplemental spending bill process. The altercation was videotaped and posted on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c. “We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war,” Obey said. “You can’t end the war if you’re going against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understood that.” David Swanson, a liberal blogger with AfterDowningStreet.org, posted a YouTube video of the encounter on http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19392 and sent the link to reporters Thursday night.
The unidentified woman told Obey she was the mother of a Marine who had been deployed to Iraq who was experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and wasn’t receiving adequate treatment from military hospitals. She then asked why Obey was not cutting off funding for the war.
Obey responded that the Washington Post has been running numerous stories on the inadequacies of military hospitals and that Congress is holding hearings on the topic, adding that the supplemental spending bill includes extra money for military healthcare.
(Yet I'll bet this asshole wants Government Run Healthcare which is what directly has led to the conditions at Walter Reid)
A few moments later he grew angry and began attacking liberal groups for failing to understand how the supplemental bill, of which he is a sponsor, would affect the war. (yeah the moonbats are to stupid to know Treason when it's right in front of them)
“The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill,” he bellowed. “You don’t have to cut off funds for an activity that doesn’t exist.”
“The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war,” he added. “It makes it illegal to proceed with the war. You don’t have to de-fund something if the war doesn’t exist.”
(And that is TREASON and outside their constitutional authority)
It is unclear if Obey was aware he was being videotaped. Most of the video is shot from waist level. (of course he didn't know or he wouldn't have been so honest) House rules for the media stipulate that members of Congress must approve when they are being videotaped. But this footage was apparently not shot by a member of the media.
Obey stressed the need for liberal groups to understand that cutting off military funding means de-funding important military programs, such as hospitals for veterans.
“I’m not going to deny body armor. I’m not going to deny funding for veterans’ hospitals and for defense hospitals so you can help people that have health problems. That’s what you do if you go against that bill,” he added. (no instead he is going to cut off re-enforcements and make those that are there illegal bulls that have been gelded)
Asked about passing a resolution to end the war, Obey screamed that they did not have the votes.
“We don’t have the votes to pass [a resolution],” he yelled. “We couldn’t even get the votes to pass a non-binding resolution one week ago. How the hell do you think we’re going to get the votes to cut off the war?”
(So instead they are trying to make defending ourselves ILLEGAL forcing a surrender)
“You cut off the funding,” an onlooker replied.
“How, if you don’t have the votes?” Obey roared in response. “That bill ends the war! If that isn’t good enough for you, you’re smoking something illegal. You’ve got your facts screwed up.”
(because the fact is this bill cuts the funding without saying it cuts the funding. Typical Democrat logic)
“We can’t get the votes! Do you see a magic wand in my pocket?” he continued, opening his suit jacket as if to display an empty pocket. “We don’t have the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up. We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war, that’s the same as de-funding it.”
(in essence surrendering to the Terrorists and inviting them to activate their cells here inside the U.S.)
When The Hill contacted him Friday about the videotaped encounter, Obey immediately apologized for getting angry with the woman, saying that his immense frustration about “this stupid war” boiled over.
“Once in a while that frustration boils over, I wish it hadn’t but you cannot continue conversations forever,” he said.
He also continued to skewer “liberal groups” for failing to inform the members and the public that the war supplemental spending bill contains language aimed at ending the war. (yes please make that CLEAR TO EVERYONE. This is a Surrender Bill)
“Let me be frank: That kind of encounter is the kind of frustration this stupid war is causing across the board,” he said in an interview with The Hill. “I’m trying to figure out how to get the votes [for a spending bill] that is going to try to end our participation in that Iraq war.”
When the woman asked him whether he was going to vote for the supplemental, that further aggravated him because, as the lead sponsor, of course he was. Tensions had already been riding high, he said, because this week protesters had been “sitting in” his district office and have refused to leave at the end of the business day and were arrested.
“What so frustrated me about the encounter is that it became apparent that she had no idea that the bill she was being asked to tell me to vote against would set a deadline for our getting out of Iraq,” he said.
“So many of these liberal groups don’t adequately inform their members. They don’t have the full story about what we’re trying to do and they wind up not being able to distinguish their friend from their enemy. These people won’t take yes for an answer.”
He said he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) have been spending “night and day” trying to figure out a way of the war in Iraq. Instead of trying to help them in the task, the members of liberal groups are viewing them as the enemy rather than their friends, Obey said.
“When you have misinformation or lack of information put into their head’s, it’s a disservice to them and to me,” Obey said. “I respect their views. But I would hope they would also respect mine and others on the Hill who are working so hard to find a way out of this.” (how about winning, there's a novel idea)
Obey’s proposed supplemental bill, entitled the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act,” expands funding for veterans’ health care and hospitals and stipulates that the Bush administration must meet standards of troop readiness before deployment to Iraq. It also states that the Iraqi government must meet Bush’s benchmarks for reform in order for our troops to remain in the region. The legislation sets a deadline for complete withdrawal from Iraq by Sept. 8, 2008, but also states that troops would be withdrawn earlier if Iraqi government fails to satisfy Bush’s benchmarks.
Obey went on to stress his opposition to the war, that he voted against it from the very beginning and that he was the first member of Congress to call for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. He said the supplemental bill provides greater resources to the very veterans the woman was expressing concern about.
“If the president wants this funding, he has to accept a timeline for an orderly ending of this war,” he said.
(No he doesn't You as a member of congress have one choice and one choice only. Cut Funding or NOT, there is no IN BETWEEN in the Constitution. You CAN NOT dictate the details of how the war is fought. That is the Constitutional Domain of the President)
“I hate this war,” he continued “It’s the worst foreign policy disaster in my life time. It’s extremely frustrating when you see groups that cannot be united because they don’t agree with each other on the timeline or they don’t agree 100 percent.”
At the end of the interview Obey again said he was sorry about his outburst then cut off questions, saying he needed to get to a hearing.
“I’m sorry that the frustration happened to erupt in that hall,” he said. “I wish it hadn’t. If these groups would inform people before they hit the Hill…we might have a better chance to have the votes to end this thing.”
The only way to "end this thing" is with Victory. Retreat will only embolden the Terrorists to activate their cells here in the U.S. sooner rather than later. We have elected a pack of Pussies and Fools to make the decisions that will effect all our lives. The Democrats have decided that it is better to fight the terrorists here in the U.S. rather than in the middle east. 3000 of our brave men and woman have died to keep the barbarian horde from our shores. Those deaths are tragic, but this war should be hailed as the greatest achievement in the history of the world. Never has a war lasted as long as this, with so few falling. We lost that many people in hours in WWII and in minutes at Gettysburg. They enemy wants to kill us whether here or there is our choice. The Democrats are choosing for all of us that we are better off fighting this war HERE.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Iranian Hezbollah Mastermind Defects.....
(Now mind you when you read this remember this guy worked for the country that the Democrats want us to negogiate help from with Iraq!)
Former Iranian Defense Official Talks to Western Intelligence
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 8, 2007; Page A16
A former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guard has left his country and is cooperating with Western intelligence agencies, providing information on Hezbollah and Iran's ties to the organization, according to a senior U.S. official.
Ali Rez Asgari disappeared last month during a visit to Turkey.
Iranian officials suggested yesterday that he may have been kidnapped by Israel or the United States. The U.S. official said Asgari is willingly cooperating. He did not divulge Asgari's whereabouts or specify who is questioning him, but made clear that the information Asgari is offering is fully available to U.S. intelligence.
Asgari served in the Iranian government until early 2005 under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Asgari's background suggests that he would have deep knowledge of Iran's national security infrastructure, conventional weapons arsenal and ties to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country's nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it. Former officers with Israel's Mossad spy agency said yesterday that Asgari had been instrumental in the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s, around the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted the country's top police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqaddam, as saying that Asgari was probably kidnapped by agents working for Western intelligence agencies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Asgari was in the United States. Another U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, denied that report and suggested that Asgari's disappearance was voluntary and orchestrated by the Israelis. A spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council did not return a call for comment.
The Israeli government denied any connection to Asgari. "To my knowledge, Israel is not involved in any way in this disappearance," said Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry.
An Iranian official, who agreed to discuss Asgari on the condition of anonymity, said that Iranian intelligence is unsure of Asgari's whereabouts but that he may have been offered money, probably by Israel, to leave the country. The Iranian official said Asgari was thought to be in Europe. "He has been out of the loop for four or five years now," the official said.
Israeli and Turkish newspapers reported yesterday that Asgari disappeared in Istanbul shortly after he arrived there on Feb. 7. Iran sent a delegation to Turkey to investigate his disappearance and requested help from Interpol in locating him.
Former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who is now a member of Israel's parliament, said he believes Asgari defected to the West. "He is very high-caliber," Yatom said. "He held a very, very senior position for many long years in Lebanon. He was in effect commander of the Revolutionary Guards" there.
Ram Igra, a former Mossad officer, said Asgari spent much of the 1980s and 1990s overseeing Iran's efforts to support, finance, arm and train Hezbollah. The State Department lists the Shiite Lebanese group as a terrorist organization.
"He lived in Lebanon and, in effect, was the man who built, promoted and founded Hezbollah in those years," Igra told Israeli state radio. "If he has something to give the West, it is in this context of terrorism and Hezbollah's network in Lebanon."
The organization, led by Hasan Nasrallah, is believed to have been behind several attacks against U.S., Jewish and Israeli interests worldwide, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed more than 80 people.
Israel fought a bloody, month-long war with Hezbollah last summer in south Lebanon after the group seized two Israeli soldiers. The soldiers have not been returned and their fate is unknown. Other Israeli soldiers have vanished in Lebanon during decades of conflict along the countries' shared border, most notably an Israeli airman named Ron Arad. Yatom said it is possible Asgari "knows quite a lot about Ron Arad."
In a January briefing to Congress, then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte described Hezbollah as a growing threat to U.S. interests. "As a result of last summer's hostilities, Hezbollah's self-confidence and hostility toward the United States as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against United States interests," Negroponte said.
U.S. intelligence officials said they had no evidence that Hezbollah was actively planning attacks but noted that the organization has the capacity to do so if it feels threatened.
(as in Sleeper Cells inside the US. However according to Democrats even if He gives us the names and locations of Hezbooha agents in the US we would not be allowed to wiretap or survail them because it would be a violation of their American Constitutional Rights)
Correspondents Scott Wilson in Jerusalem and Anthony Shadid in Beirut and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Iran
Hezzbooha
Former Iranian Defense Official Talks to Western Intelligence
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 8, 2007; Page A16
A former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guard has left his country and is cooperating with Western intelligence agencies, providing information on Hezbollah and Iran's ties to the organization, according to a senior U.S. official.
Ali Rez Asgari disappeared last month during a visit to Turkey.
Iranian officials suggested yesterday that he may have been kidnapped by Israel or the United States. The U.S. official said Asgari is willingly cooperating. He did not divulge Asgari's whereabouts or specify who is questioning him, but made clear that the information Asgari is offering is fully available to U.S. intelligence.
Asgari served in the Iranian government until early 2005 under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Asgari's background suggests that he would have deep knowledge of Iran's national security infrastructure, conventional weapons arsenal and ties to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country's nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it. Former officers with Israel's Mossad spy agency said yesterday that Asgari had been instrumental in the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s, around the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted the country's top police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqaddam, as saying that Asgari was probably kidnapped by agents working for Western intelligence agencies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Asgari was in the United States. Another U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, denied that report and suggested that Asgari's disappearance was voluntary and orchestrated by the Israelis. A spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council did not return a call for comment.
The Israeli government denied any connection to Asgari. "To my knowledge, Israel is not involved in any way in this disappearance," said Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry.
An Iranian official, who agreed to discuss Asgari on the condition of anonymity, said that Iranian intelligence is unsure of Asgari's whereabouts but that he may have been offered money, probably by Israel, to leave the country. The Iranian official said Asgari was thought to be in Europe. "He has been out of the loop for four or five years now," the official said.
Israeli and Turkish newspapers reported yesterday that Asgari disappeared in Istanbul shortly after he arrived there on Feb. 7. Iran sent a delegation to Turkey to investigate his disappearance and requested help from Interpol in locating him.
Former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who is now a member of Israel's parliament, said he believes Asgari defected to the West. "He is very high-caliber," Yatom said. "He held a very, very senior position for many long years in Lebanon. He was in effect commander of the Revolutionary Guards" there.
Ram Igra, a former Mossad officer, said Asgari spent much of the 1980s and 1990s overseeing Iran's efforts to support, finance, arm and train Hezbollah. The State Department lists the Shiite Lebanese group as a terrorist organization.
"He lived in Lebanon and, in effect, was the man who built, promoted and founded Hezbollah in those years," Igra told Israeli state radio. "If he has something to give the West, it is in this context of terrorism and Hezbollah's network in Lebanon."
The organization, led by Hasan Nasrallah, is believed to have been behind several attacks against U.S., Jewish and Israeli interests worldwide, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed more than 80 people.
Israel fought a bloody, month-long war with Hezbollah last summer in south Lebanon after the group seized two Israeli soldiers. The soldiers have not been returned and their fate is unknown. Other Israeli soldiers have vanished in Lebanon during decades of conflict along the countries' shared border, most notably an Israeli airman named Ron Arad. Yatom said it is possible Asgari "knows quite a lot about Ron Arad."
In a January briefing to Congress, then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte described Hezbollah as a growing threat to U.S. interests. "As a result of last summer's hostilities, Hezbollah's self-confidence and hostility toward the United States as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against United States interests," Negroponte said.
U.S. intelligence officials said they had no evidence that Hezbollah was actively planning attacks but noted that the organization has the capacity to do so if it feels threatened.
(as in Sleeper Cells inside the US. However according to Democrats even if He gives us the names and locations of Hezbooha agents in the US we would not be allowed to wiretap or survail them because it would be a violation of their American Constitutional Rights)
Correspondents Scott Wilson in Jerusalem and Anthony Shadid in Beirut and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Iran
Hezzbooha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)