Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
What the Democrats have planned for YOUR MOTHER
What do you make of the news that a woman aged 108 has been told she must wait 18 months before the Health Service will give her the hearing aid she needs? Former piano teacher Olive Beal, one of the oldest people in Britain, has poor eyesight and uses a wheelchair. Now her family have said that realistically Mrs Beal is unlikely ever to receive the digital hearing aid that will save her from isolation. The one-time suffragette is one of hundreds of thousands of older people made to wait up to two years and sometimes more for modern digital hearing aids that make a dramatic difference to their ability to hear and communicate.
Two points here;
1. Once again we see how cold and inhuman the NHS can be. The individual's circumstances are as nothing to the bureaucratic juggernaut that runs the NHS. The woman is 108 - surely someone somewhere saw that fact?
2. Why can't her family go and BUY her one? Stop waiting on the State to help your Mum, help her yourself by buying her the digital hearing aid.
Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 09:13AM by David Vance
Democrats
Universal Health Care
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Walter Mondale still an Ass after all these years
Walter Mondull has always been an ASS. Ever since his stance against the Space Program which he said "was a waste of money that would be better spent on Welfare". Not one good thing has come out of the welfare programs Walter, but the list of things that has come and are still coming out of the Space Program are almost endless. In this article he joins the man that he served with Jimmy "Gritz" Carter in displaying Bush/Cheyney Derangement Syndrome, a mental condition that too many on the left have a terminal case of.
Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page B07
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track. (yes the evil mastermind now holds that office)
The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since. (yes we must throw in a mention of Satan himself NIXON)
But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues. (yes and what good advice it must have been considering all the wonderful achievements of the Carter administration)
Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office. (yes they made the position "something good", but now the evil Darth Cheyney has corrupted his beautiful achievement)
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served. ( I like the continual subtle assertion that Cheyney does NOT serve Bush but his own agenda. That is a major symptom of the mental disorder)
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. (yes Darth Cheyney the puppet master behind everything, poor George would make the right decisions if only this evil man wasn't hiding the truth from him)
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts. (Not True)
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- (no Congress REPEATEDLY has overstepped its authority in its endless subpoenas and requests for information that it has NO right to) it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him. (the Public accountability is in the form of elections not opinion polls, this country is not governed by manipulated polls)
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen. (because it benefits both the President and the Country, you ASS)
Three decades ago we lived through another painful example of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great excess. But here we are again. (where does he get this connection? no where has he made the case that any of this is like Watergate. Like Carter this man is infested with Derangement Syndrome)
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace. (my god the shit is deep, The Carter administration was a complete failure and is directly responsible for the mess that the Middle East is today)
The writer was vice president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page B07
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track. (yes the evil mastermind now holds that office)
The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since. (yes we must throw in a mention of Satan himself NIXON)
But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues. (yes and what good advice it must have been considering all the wonderful achievements of the Carter administration)
Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office. (yes they made the position "something good", but now the evil Darth Cheyney has corrupted his beautiful achievement)
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served. ( I like the continual subtle assertion that Cheyney does NOT serve Bush but his own agenda. That is a major symptom of the mental disorder)
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. (yes Darth Cheyney the puppet master behind everything, poor George would make the right decisions if only this evil man wasn't hiding the truth from him)
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts. (Not True)
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- (no Congress REPEATEDLY has overstepped its authority in its endless subpoenas and requests for information that it has NO right to) it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him. (the Public accountability is in the form of elections not opinion polls, this country is not governed by manipulated polls)
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen. (because it benefits both the President and the Country, you ASS)
Three decades ago we lived through another painful example of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great excess. But here we are again. (where does he get this connection? no where has he made the case that any of this is like Watergate. Like Carter this man is infested with Derangement Syndrome)
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace. (my god the shit is deep, The Carter administration was a complete failure and is directly responsible for the mess that the Middle East is today)
The writer was vice president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
Democrats
Mondull
STOP THE MADRASSA
STOP THE MADRASSA is a grass roots coalition of citizen groups and individuals concerned about the NYC Department of Education’s non-responsive posture regarding the creation of a new public school to teach Arabic history, culture and language: the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA).
The school is projected to open soon - in September 2007 - but Mayor Bloomberg and the NY Department of Education have refused to answer the public’s questions. The community’s concerns have been dismissed and silenced by the school bureaucrats. City and state officials who are creating this special Arabic/Middle Eastern public school have either failed to properly conduct the necessary background and preparatory work to open such a school, or they are purposefully evading their legal obligations to inform the public of the status of their work.
We ask the authorities of New York City and the State of New York to reconsider the opening of this badly managed and inflammatory educational “experiment” for this fall’s semester.
After parents at Park Slope in Brooklyn successfully opposed the Department of Education’s placement of KGIA in their building, the City placed the school at 345 Dean Street in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, a building that currently houses the Brooklyn High School of the Arts and the Math and Science Exploratory Middle School. We demand to know why.
To date, despite numerous requests, the City has provided no explanation to members of the coalition or the public at large about the precise nature of the curricula, the text books that will be used, the publishers of those texts, or the lesson plans. Further, no one from the City has provided information about the selection process of the teachers for the “Arabic” and “Middle Eastern” subjects, whether they will be certified, and if not, how they will be effectively supervised. We demand to know why.
Our citizens coalition continues to investigate and protest the school by all possible means, including our New York City chapters of the United American Committee, NY-ICE, Gathering of Eagles, the Center for Vigilant Freedom, and a wide variety of neighborhood groups, online forums and individuals. We attend PTA meetings and community meetings, conduct constant letter-writing campaigns to media and authorities, to Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein in particular. Our activists are taking this fight to the media and the questions about the school continue to be raised by the N.Y. Sun (http://www.nysun.com/specials/gibran.php) and major blogs. We have submitted two Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests for curricula materials and other documents, but have received nothing to date. On July 23, our lawyer submitted a third FOIL Request to New York City and the state. We demand answers to our questions.
Why is there so much pressure to open this school in September 2007 without going through the usual and proper procedures for review? Why are community and parent concerns not being answered now, before the school opens in any location? Why is this school being given preferential treatment at the expense of existing schools in the New York City Public School system? These and many other questions remain unanswered. Yet even as our questions go unanswered, our coalition has continued to grow.
Chancellor Joel Klein has attempted to deflect all public inquiry with a statement-of-reassurance regarding KGIA : “If any school became a religious school, as some people say Khalil Gibran would be, or it became a national school, in the sense that it really wasn’t an American public school, I would shut it down,” said Klein. “I promise you that.” [source http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=9&aid=69409]
Keep your promise, Mr. Klein. Shut down the Khalil Gibran International Academy. Now.
This school opens in September
WHEN will our questions regarding faculty and curricula be addressed?
Has anyone who reads Arabic seen the textbooks that will be used?
Will certified teachers who are Coptic Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, and Christian Arabs, be recruited?
Which Arabic history of the Middle East will be taught? The Islamic? The Christian? The Jewish?
Who will teach American and European history, math, English?
Will KGIA meet the N.Y. State guidelines for a NY Public school?
Will students be taught be in English?
How can a new school open when the proper forms and deadlines have NOT been met?
How will the prayer requests of KGIA’s Muslim students be accommodated in a public school?
What will be the reaction to someone eating a pork or ham sandwich if they are in proximity of one of KGIA’s students?
Will Halal food be served in the cafeteria?
Will KGIA’s students be part of the general school population or sequestered and separated?
Will there be concessions made to accommodate the “modesty” requirements of Muslim students?
How will wudu, or the process of ritual washing - which must precede prayer - take place? In the public lavatories?
What will happen if someone says “Osama” within earshot of a KGIA student? Are KGIA and the NYC Department of Education prepared to defend themselves against such lawsuits from CAIR and deal with the resultant bad publicity?
Has anyone seen the lesson plans?
Is the Principal certified according to specific N.Y. State qualifications?
These are only some of the legitimate questions and concerns that NYC parents and taxpayers have regarding KGIA. Why has the New York City Department of Education not offered Arabic as a language block throughout the NY Public School system? Our coalition acknowledges the need for more Arabic speakers, but why create a whole school to teach one language? Why encourage the isolation and non-assimilation of Arabic speaking students by creating a school within a school, with a focus on an Arabic viewpoint for teaching world history? Principal Dhabah Almontaser has been quoted as saying the Arabic classes will not even be offered during school hours and will be taught from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m, so the Islamic culture and history components will be the daily emphasis.
The Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition remains at the center of this fight for integrity in our public schools. For further information see http://stopthemadrassa.wordpress.com .
Keep your promise, Mr. Klein. Shut down the Khalil Gibran International Academy. Now.
Volunteer Today! If you are concerned about Madrassa schools becoming part of the New York City public education tradition, please volunteer to help with media and community outreach, organizing, legal research (under the guidance of our lawyers and paralegals), investigations and research of Islamist curricula being used in New York City and nationwide.
Please Contact: Sara Springer at EDINBKLYN@aol.com or Pamela Hall at PamelaHall07@yahoo.com
The school is projected to open soon - in September 2007 - but Mayor Bloomberg and the NY Department of Education have refused to answer the public’s questions. The community’s concerns have been dismissed and silenced by the school bureaucrats. City and state officials who are creating this special Arabic/Middle Eastern public school have either failed to properly conduct the necessary background and preparatory work to open such a school, or they are purposefully evading their legal obligations to inform the public of the status of their work.
We ask the authorities of New York City and the State of New York to reconsider the opening of this badly managed and inflammatory educational “experiment” for this fall’s semester.
After parents at Park Slope in Brooklyn successfully opposed the Department of Education’s placement of KGIA in their building, the City placed the school at 345 Dean Street in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, a building that currently houses the Brooklyn High School of the Arts and the Math and Science Exploratory Middle School. We demand to know why.
To date, despite numerous requests, the City has provided no explanation to members of the coalition or the public at large about the precise nature of the curricula, the text books that will be used, the publishers of those texts, or the lesson plans. Further, no one from the City has provided information about the selection process of the teachers for the “Arabic” and “Middle Eastern” subjects, whether they will be certified, and if not, how they will be effectively supervised. We demand to know why.
Our citizens coalition continues to investigate and protest the school by all possible means, including our New York City chapters of the United American Committee, NY-ICE, Gathering of Eagles, the Center for Vigilant Freedom, and a wide variety of neighborhood groups, online forums and individuals. We attend PTA meetings and community meetings, conduct constant letter-writing campaigns to media and authorities, to Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein in particular. Our activists are taking this fight to the media and the questions about the school continue to be raised by the N.Y. Sun (http://www.nysun.com/specials/gibran.php) and major blogs. We have submitted two Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests for curricula materials and other documents, but have received nothing to date. On July 23, our lawyer submitted a third FOIL Request to New York City and the state. We demand answers to our questions.
Why is there so much pressure to open this school in September 2007 without going through the usual and proper procedures for review? Why are community and parent concerns not being answered now, before the school opens in any location? Why is this school being given preferential treatment at the expense of existing schools in the New York City Public School system? These and many other questions remain unanswered. Yet even as our questions go unanswered, our coalition has continued to grow.
Chancellor Joel Klein has attempted to deflect all public inquiry with a statement-of-reassurance regarding KGIA : “If any school became a religious school, as some people say Khalil Gibran would be, or it became a national school, in the sense that it really wasn’t an American public school, I would shut it down,” said Klein. “I promise you that.” [source http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=9&aid=69409]
Keep your promise, Mr. Klein. Shut down the Khalil Gibran International Academy. Now.
This school opens in September
WHEN will our questions regarding faculty and curricula be addressed?
Has anyone who reads Arabic seen the textbooks that will be used?
Will certified teachers who are Coptic Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, and Christian Arabs, be recruited?
Which Arabic history of the Middle East will be taught? The Islamic? The Christian? The Jewish?
Who will teach American and European history, math, English?
Will KGIA meet the N.Y. State guidelines for a NY Public school?
Will students be taught be in English?
How can a new school open when the proper forms and deadlines have NOT been met?
How will the prayer requests of KGIA’s Muslim students be accommodated in a public school?
What will be the reaction to someone eating a pork or ham sandwich if they are in proximity of one of KGIA’s students?
Will Halal food be served in the cafeteria?
Will KGIA’s students be part of the general school population or sequestered and separated?
Will there be concessions made to accommodate the “modesty” requirements of Muslim students?
How will wudu, or the process of ritual washing - which must precede prayer - take place? In the public lavatories?
What will happen if someone says “Osama” within earshot of a KGIA student? Are KGIA and the NYC Department of Education prepared to defend themselves against such lawsuits from CAIR and deal with the resultant bad publicity?
Has anyone seen the lesson plans?
Is the Principal certified according to specific N.Y. State qualifications?
These are only some of the legitimate questions and concerns that NYC parents and taxpayers have regarding KGIA. Why has the New York City Department of Education not offered Arabic as a language block throughout the NY Public School system? Our coalition acknowledges the need for more Arabic speakers, but why create a whole school to teach one language? Why encourage the isolation and non-assimilation of Arabic speaking students by creating a school within a school, with a focus on an Arabic viewpoint for teaching world history? Principal Dhabah Almontaser has been quoted as saying the Arabic classes will not even be offered during school hours and will be taught from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m, so the Islamic culture and history components will be the daily emphasis.
The Stop the Madrassa Community Coalition remains at the center of this fight for integrity in our public schools. For further information see http://stopthemadrassa.wordpress.com .
Keep your promise, Mr. Klein. Shut down the Khalil Gibran International Academy. Now.
Volunteer Today! If you are concerned about Madrassa schools becoming part of the New York City public education tradition, please volunteer to help with media and community outreach, organizing, legal research (under the guidance of our lawyers and paralegals), investigations and research of Islamist curricula being used in New York City and nationwide.
Please Contact: Sara Springer at EDINBKLYN@aol.com or Pamela Hall at PamelaHall07@yahoo.com
Friday, July 27, 2007
Bolsheviks on the move...
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. (these are the same tactics and methods the Bolsheviks used, at the beginning of the Soviet Era. They learned them from Nazi's, from the SA that helped put Hitler in power)
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. (I wonder if those 5000 were given Brown Shirts like the Hitler youth had)
"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. (yeah threats and intimidation always work better on the local level)
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. (yes God forbid if you don't believe the voodoo science of global warming, that alone should get your name placed on a list for "re-education")
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. (good for them)
"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available." (especially the number 1 rated news Chanel)
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. (yes you must NEVER question fake science)
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. (O'Reilly is correct Kos is a hate site just read it, the hate speaks for itself)
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. (Yet they have NO PROBLEM with ABC, CBS, NBC, AND CNN that consistently favor a communist liberal view. Which have even gone as far as putting FAKE documents on the air the week before an election)
"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." (Yes it does "It's FAIR AND BALANCED)
This is a dangerous game being bank rolled by anti-american George Soros. He is openly organizing thousands of little Bolsheviks to threaten people for exercising their free speech by spending their advertising dollars where they choose. They state it themselves, if you don't believe in what they believe and how they believe it, YOU need to be THREATENED! Charges of HARASSMENT should be filed against ALL 3 of the groups listed in the first paragraph of this article the second after the first phone calls are received.
Democrats
Sorros
Fox News
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. (these are the same tactics and methods the Bolsheviks used, at the beginning of the Soviet Era. They learned them from Nazi's, from the SA that helped put Hitler in power)
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. (I wonder if those 5000 were given Brown Shirts like the Hitler youth had)
"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. (yeah threats and intimidation always work better on the local level)
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. (yes God forbid if you don't believe the voodoo science of global warming, that alone should get your name placed on a list for "re-education")
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. (good for them)
"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available." (especially the number 1 rated news Chanel)
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. (yes you must NEVER question fake science)
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. (O'Reilly is correct Kos is a hate site just read it, the hate speaks for itself)
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. (Yet they have NO PROBLEM with ABC, CBS, NBC, AND CNN that consistently favor a communist liberal view. Which have even gone as far as putting FAKE documents on the air the week before an election)
"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." (Yes it does "It's FAIR AND BALANCED)
This is a dangerous game being bank rolled by anti-american George Soros. He is openly organizing thousands of little Bolsheviks to threaten people for exercising their free speech by spending their advertising dollars where they choose. They state it themselves, if you don't believe in what they believe and how they believe it, YOU need to be THREATENED! Charges of HARASSMENT should be filed against ALL 3 of the groups listed in the first paragraph of this article the second after the first phone calls are received.
Democrats
Sorros
Fox News
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Barack the Obomination
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Senate Democrats Back Barack Obama's Declaration That Border Security Has Nothing To Do With Homeland Security.
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 11:58 PM
Posted by Generalissimo
It has not been a good week for Barack Obama. The first term Senator of Illinois and chief thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton on her ascendance to the presidency tripped on a YouTube question in the Democratic debate a couple of nights ago by declaring that no dictator is above meeting with, regardless of the situation, raising the eyebrows of even some of the Beltway punditry. He tripped again today.
Obama found himself in the usually mundane role of Senate chair this afternoon while the Republicans used procedure to tie the Democrats in knots once again. And when put in the position to make a ruling, he gave the Democrats a short-term win, but a long-term loss on the immigration debate. He very well have given critics of his presidential campaign more fodder.
Feckless majority leader Harry Reid had a homeland security appropriations bill on the floor for debate, and thought the day was going to go rather smoothly, until the Republicans showed him up once again by offering an amendment to tie border security elements of the immigration bill to it.
The Republicans, still smarting from the immigration bill meltdown of last month, showed they not dropped the parts of the bill that conservatives by and large have been clamoring for, namely funding for the fence, more border patrol agents funded, etc. Senators Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, Judd Gregg and Jeff Sessions all worked on today’s amendment to put teeth to some of the good planks of border security reform, and attached it to the funding bill for homeland security, putting the Democrats in a box. Politically speaking, this was a brilliant move. You knew this to be the case because Ted Kennedy, the author of much of the language in the failed immigration bill this year, came down to the floor and read the riot act about the Republicans trying this stunt.
Harry Reid certainly didn’t want to have this measure voted on, because he didn’t want to look foolish and have the Republican parts of the immigration bill passed around him on an end run, so he asked the chair for a ruling that the Graham amendment be stricken because it wasn’t germane to the original bill. That’s right, the Democratic leader of the Senate wanted a ruling that border security funding has nothing to do with homeland security funding. All eyes turned to the chair, currently occupied by Barack Obama. Here is what he had to say.
So there you have it. Senator Barack Obama, the man who is trying to win your vote to be the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, the man whose primary mission is to protect and defend the country, can’t see how border security has anything to do with homeland security. Unbelievable, but true.
Harry Reid then proceeded to whine for four minutes trying to defend and deflect at the procedural motion to kill off the Graham amendment.
The vote was taken, a simple majority of Senators present being required, to agree with the chair’s ruling. If so, the Graham amendment is killed. If not, the Graham amendment has to be voted on. After an extended voting session, the final tally was 52-44. All but two Republicans present voted against the chair. All Democrats present voted with the chair. When the vote was over, Harry Reid smiled, not yet realizing the burning sensation in his foot was from the bullet hole he just shot into it.
Hillary Clinton, in her accustomed reptilian fashion, didn’t cast a vote on this procedural motion, leaving Obama to twist in the wind on the campaign trail for weeks and months to come defending why he thinks border security and homeland security have nothing to do with each other.
But once again, even though the Republicans lost this maneuver, the bottom line is very clear. When the touchy subject of immigration and border security is debated during the election cycle between now and next November, the Republicans are on record of working for increased physical fencing, more Border Patrol agents, all the elements serious Americans expect from a serious party. The Democrats see border security as something that will just take care of itself once they figure out how to naturalize and enfranchise the people already here. The Republicans lost this battle, but the war they have been losing rhetorically on immigration may have finally turned the corner.
UPDATE: They did get the amendment passed today:
http://www.senate.gov/legislativ...on=1& vote=00278
YEAs 89
NAYs 1
Not Voting 10
I emailed Senator Graham's office for the text, but haven't heard back.
Mike's America Homepage
Obamination
Border
Surrendercrats
Senate Democrats Back Barack Obama's Declaration That Border Security Has Nothing To Do With Homeland Security.
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 11:58 PM
Posted by Generalissimo
It has not been a good week for Barack Obama. The first term Senator of Illinois and chief thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton on her ascendance to the presidency tripped on a YouTube question in the Democratic debate a couple of nights ago by declaring that no dictator is above meeting with, regardless of the situation, raising the eyebrows of even some of the Beltway punditry. He tripped again today.
Obama found himself in the usually mundane role of Senate chair this afternoon while the Republicans used procedure to tie the Democrats in knots once again. And when put in the position to make a ruling, he gave the Democrats a short-term win, but a long-term loss on the immigration debate. He very well have given critics of his presidential campaign more fodder.
Feckless majority leader Harry Reid had a homeland security appropriations bill on the floor for debate, and thought the day was going to go rather smoothly, until the Republicans showed him up once again by offering an amendment to tie border security elements of the immigration bill to it.
The Republicans, still smarting from the immigration bill meltdown of last month, showed they not dropped the parts of the bill that conservatives by and large have been clamoring for, namely funding for the fence, more border patrol agents funded, etc. Senators Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, Judd Gregg and Jeff Sessions all worked on today’s amendment to put teeth to some of the good planks of border security reform, and attached it to the funding bill for homeland security, putting the Democrats in a box. Politically speaking, this was a brilliant move. You knew this to be the case because Ted Kennedy, the author of much of the language in the failed immigration bill this year, came down to the floor and read the riot act about the Republicans trying this stunt.
Harry Reid certainly didn’t want to have this measure voted on, because he didn’t want to look foolish and have the Republican parts of the immigration bill passed around him on an end run, so he asked the chair for a ruling that the Graham amendment be stricken because it wasn’t germane to the original bill. That’s right, the Democratic leader of the Senate wanted a ruling that border security funding has nothing to do with homeland security funding. All eyes turned to the chair, currently occupied by Barack Obama. Here is what he had to say.
HR: We have to have a ruling here first.
BO: The chair is not aware
of an arguably legislative provision in the House bill, HR 2638 [the homeland
security funding bill], to which Amendment number 2412 offered by the Senator
from South Carolina [the border security funding amendment] could conceivably be
germane.
Judd Gregg: So the amendment is germane?
BO:
No, that the chair does not believe that the defense of germaneness is
appropriately placed at this time.
So there you have it. Senator Barack Obama, the man who is trying to win your vote to be the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, the man whose primary mission is to protect and defend the country, can’t see how border security has anything to do with homeland security. Unbelievable, but true.
Harry Reid then proceeded to whine for four minutes trying to defend and deflect at the procedural motion to kill off the Graham amendment.
The vote was taken, a simple majority of Senators present being required, to agree with the chair’s ruling. If so, the Graham amendment is killed. If not, the Graham amendment has to be voted on. After an extended voting session, the final tally was 52-44. All but two Republicans present voted against the chair. All Democrats present voted with the chair. When the vote was over, Harry Reid smiled, not yet realizing the burning sensation in his foot was from the bullet hole he just shot into it.
Hillary Clinton, in her accustomed reptilian fashion, didn’t cast a vote on this procedural motion, leaving Obama to twist in the wind on the campaign trail for weeks and months to come defending why he thinks border security and homeland security have nothing to do with each other.
But once again, even though the Republicans lost this maneuver, the bottom line is very clear. When the touchy subject of immigration and border security is debated during the election cycle between now and next November, the Republicans are on record of working for increased physical fencing, more Border Patrol agents, all the elements serious Americans expect from a serious party. The Democrats see border security as something that will just take care of itself once they figure out how to naturalize and enfranchise the people already here. The Republicans lost this battle, but the war they have been losing rhetorically on immigration may have finally turned the corner.
UPDATE: They did get the amendment passed today:
http://www.senate.gov/legislativ...on=1& vote=00278
YEAs 89
NAYs 1
Not Voting 10
I emailed Senator Graham's office for the text, but haven't heard back.
Mike's America Homepage
Obamination
Border
Surrendercrats
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What a Load of Crap
Editorial The YouTube Debate (From the Philthadelphia Inquirer)
Viewers won
The YouTube presidential debate Monday night contained some flaws, but overall the event on CNN proved it is worth repeating. (this journalist must be smokin crack)
This debate was very different from ones you've seen in the past. (not really)
Eight Democratic presidential candidates took questions in the form of videos submitted to YouTube, the popular Internet site. About 50 questions were culled from more than 3,000 received. (in other words the STAFF of CNN hand picked the questions they wanted)
So, rather than answering a panel of journalists, the candidates fielded queries from the mother of a soldier starting a second tour in Iraq, two lesbians wanting to know why they cannot marry, and others. (see BULLSHIT questions Cherry picked by Dems for Dems)
On Iraq, Barry Mitchell of Philadelphia asked: "How do we pull out now? Don't you think . . . that would open it up for Iran and Syria?" Nancy McDonald of Wilmington, pointing out that earnings exceeding $97,500 are not subject to Social Security taxes, asked: "What's up with that?" (ooh good questions from a couple of rocket scientists, I'm surprised he doesn't list the gun kook question that they threw in for fun)
The result was an entertaining two-hour discussion on a variety of subjects. (if that's what this journalist finds entertaining I would hate to be his/her spouse) Many of the YouTube videos were produced creatively; some used humor effectively to inquire about a serious issue. For example, one depicted a melting snowman asking about global warming.
This isn't to say every presidential debate should use this method. But if a debate is entertaining, more people will watch - and that's a good thing. (no they won't their ratings sucked almost as bad as the debate itself)
A YouTube debate for the Republican candidates is scheduled for Sept. 17. (what a MISTAKE)
There's always the danger of form obliterating substance in this format, but it didn't happen Monday night. The questions were usually good, leading to discussions that highlighted real differences among the candidates. (where was the substance? Like I said this journalist needs rehab.)
Some still dodged questions, but they may pay a price. (with who?) It's one thing to ignore a question from a reporter; it's quite another to give short shrift to a woman suffering from breast cancer.
Unfortunately, equal time was a casualty in this debate. Moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN was more likely to ask follow-up questions of the front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.), or Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.), while back-of-the-pack candidates former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) got far less air time.
Each candidate should get roughly the same amount of time.
For years, this Editorial Board has sponsored civic forums aimed at giving citizens more of a voice in the democratic process. The YouTube debate used a popular technology to reach the same goal, and the result was encouraging. (what a Load of CRAP)
This format was perfect. It showed more than usual the idiocy of these debates. The Presidential Debates are a spectacle of moronic tapestry. Never would we have believed as kids that the most powerful position in the world would be settled by geeks asking a panel of bigger geeks question that mean NOTHING.
What we need are debates in two formats 1) Hugh Hewitt and Tim Russert asking both sets (Dems & Rep) questions with REAL follow up, 2) One on One debates of two candidates at a time, where each candidate gets 20 min to state a position and then their opponant gets 15 mins to rip that position apart. With each candidate getting 3 20min sesions.
You Tube
Viewers won
The YouTube presidential debate Monday night contained some flaws, but overall the event on CNN proved it is worth repeating. (this journalist must be smokin crack)
This debate was very different from ones you've seen in the past. (not really)
Eight Democratic presidential candidates took questions in the form of videos submitted to YouTube, the popular Internet site. About 50 questions were culled from more than 3,000 received. (in other words the STAFF of CNN hand picked the questions they wanted)
So, rather than answering a panel of journalists, the candidates fielded queries from the mother of a soldier starting a second tour in Iraq, two lesbians wanting to know why they cannot marry, and others. (see BULLSHIT questions Cherry picked by Dems for Dems)
On Iraq, Barry Mitchell of Philadelphia asked: "How do we pull out now? Don't you think . . . that would open it up for Iran and Syria?" Nancy McDonald of Wilmington, pointing out that earnings exceeding $97,500 are not subject to Social Security taxes, asked: "What's up with that?" (ooh good questions from a couple of rocket scientists, I'm surprised he doesn't list the gun kook question that they threw in for fun)
The result was an entertaining two-hour discussion on a variety of subjects. (if that's what this journalist finds entertaining I would hate to be his/her spouse) Many of the YouTube videos were produced creatively; some used humor effectively to inquire about a serious issue. For example, one depicted a melting snowman asking about global warming.
This isn't to say every presidential debate should use this method. But if a debate is entertaining, more people will watch - and that's a good thing. (no they won't their ratings sucked almost as bad as the debate itself)
A YouTube debate for the Republican candidates is scheduled for Sept. 17. (what a MISTAKE)
There's always the danger of form obliterating substance in this format, but it didn't happen Monday night. The questions were usually good, leading to discussions that highlighted real differences among the candidates. (where was the substance? Like I said this journalist needs rehab.)
Some still dodged questions, but they may pay a price. (with who?) It's one thing to ignore a question from a reporter; it's quite another to give short shrift to a woman suffering from breast cancer.
Unfortunately, equal time was a casualty in this debate. Moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN was more likely to ask follow-up questions of the front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.), or Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.), while back-of-the-pack candidates former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) got far less air time.
Each candidate should get roughly the same amount of time.
For years, this Editorial Board has sponsored civic forums aimed at giving citizens more of a voice in the democratic process. The YouTube debate used a popular technology to reach the same goal, and the result was encouraging. (what a Load of CRAP)
This format was perfect. It showed more than usual the idiocy of these debates. The Presidential Debates are a spectacle of moronic tapestry. Never would we have believed as kids that the most powerful position in the world would be settled by geeks asking a panel of bigger geeks question that mean NOTHING.
What we need are debates in two formats 1) Hugh Hewitt and Tim Russert asking both sets (Dems & Rep) questions with REAL follow up, 2) One on One debates of two candidates at a time, where each candidate gets 20 min to state a position and then their opponant gets 15 mins to rip that position apart. With each candidate getting 3 20min sesions.
You Tube
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The City of Brotherly Love.... or The inevitability of events from 50yrs of Democrat Rule
The Murder Rate so far this year 211 males, 25 females.
As this Eden of one party rule enjoys the fruits of the Democrat tree, those of us that live here know that the apples are rotten.
Click on a map to see an interactive guide to the murders.
Where are the cries to pullout of this Democrat Heaven? Last years murder rate was 406 in Philly the Death Count in Iraq was 820 and not all were combat deaths. Hell the city of Bahgdad had less killings than Philly, Yet we must retreat.
These assholes that call themselves "Democrats and Progressives" can't manage our nations founding capital, but we are supposed to believe they can keep the country safe?
Map curtesy of NBC 10
Philly
Dems
As this Eden of one party rule enjoys the fruits of the Democrat tree, those of us that live here know that the apples are rotten.
Click on a map to see an interactive guide to the murders.
Where are the cries to pullout of this Democrat Heaven? Last years murder rate was 406 in Philly the Death Count in Iraq was 820 and not all were combat deaths. Hell the city of Bahgdad had less killings than Philly, Yet we must retreat.
These assholes that call themselves "Democrats and Progressives" can't manage our nations founding capital, but we are supposed to believe they can keep the country safe?
Map curtesy of NBC 10
Philly
Dems
Monday, July 23, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Commie Bitch....
It’s Time for Action
Democrats need to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the Iraq War. (they are not powerless they can always cut the money)
Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 3:17 p.m. ET July 20, 2007
July 20, 2007 - The media treated the Senate’s all-night session as a comedy routine, a chance to make jokes about sleepovers and pizza delivery. Everybody knew going in that the Democrats didn’t have the votes to pass an amendment calling for the draw down of troops beginning in 120 days. But the Democrats needed to show they’re at least trying to bring about the change in policy they promised on the campaign trail last year. (so they put on a waste of time and money side show for their base, and the Press)
The operative emotion is anger. (ahh boo hoo) The voters are almost as furious with the Democrats for their inability to end the Iraq War as they are with President Bush for prolonging it. (no mention how they will feel when bombs go off in our streets and a million Iraqi's are killed by the Iranian death squads that will fill the void if we leave to quickly) Democrat Chellie Pingree lost by 16 points when she challenged Maine Republican Susan Collins in 2002. Now Collins, running for re-election in ’08, is on everybody’s endangered list. (good, she's a RINO) After much public agonizing, she became one of the four Republicans this week to break with Bush and vote with the Democrats on the war.
“It’s a different world,” says Pingree, who is running for the House seat in Maine being vacated by Democrat Tom Allen, who’s taking on Collins at much better odds than Pingree had five years ago. “You can’t be liberal enough,” (LOL) Pingree exclaimed at a crowded party in the Washington condo that liberal blogger Ariana Huffington rented for the month of July while her daughter interns with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Until she stepped down in January to return to Maine, Pingree headed Common Cause, a nonpartisan citizens’ lobbying group. Before that she served in the Maine Senate, where she rose to become majority leader. Voters don’t understand why the Democrats can’t work their will, she says, and excusing inaction with a civics lesson about cloture and the limits of power won’t get the party’s leadership off the hook. (the more the party does what it's doing the better the next election will turn out for the Republicans)
Democrats needed to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the war, even if they are. (they are NOT, they can always cut the funding, but they don't want to face the consequences of doing the only CONSTITUTIONAL option they have) They’re keeping the heat on, and that’s a good thing. GOP leader Mitch McConnell, outraged at the sleepover stunt, cited a Zogby poll taken before this week’s Senate action that found voters’ approval for the Democratic Congress has dropped to 14 percent—evidence to McConnell that the Democrats’ strategy is failing. Pollster John Zogby questions this interpretation, saying that Congress never does well no matter who’s in charge, and in post-Katrina America, government institutions are at a low point. Liberals in particular rate this Congress very low because of the war, which is why the least the Senate could do is pull an all-nighter. “I see this not as a stroke of desperation but something they have to do,” Zogby told NEWSWEEK. “They have to keep trying to end the war. They can’t be seen as throwing their arms up in the air and saying it’s impossible, or they’ll get these kind of numbers.” (that statement should raise a red flag, Zogby sounds like he has chosen sides. That wouldn't influence any of his POLS would it?)
By cutting off the debate and pulling the bill, the Democrats denied the Republicans the chance to vote on more moderate amendments that would have given them political cover with voters while doing nothing to end the war. The antiwar wing of the party doesn’t like compromise, so they applauded the decision to put off further action until September. “Now the ball’s in our court,” says Tom Matzzie, Washington director for MoveOn.org, (George Soros) one of several groups organizing antiwar campaigns in the home states of wavering Republicans. Matzzie talks regularly with Vietnam War activist Tom Hayden (Chicago 7) to get his thoughts about how to proceed, and how to avoid pitfalls. Hayden warned that the White House will try to divide the critics, and so Matzzie and others have worked hard to keep Senate Democrats unified. And they’ve countered White House efforts to demonize critics by putting Iraq veterans and military families in the forefront of demonstrations instead of liberal activists.
What we’re seeing is a political campaign to force the president to change policy, and it’s going to take until at least late fall. (and it will still fail) Matzzie says he didn’t expect major defections until September. “We’re ahead of schedule.” When Indiana Republican Richard Lugar spoke out on the Senate floor last month, he could have been reading from Matzzie’s talking points. The reasons Lugar gave for wanting to draw down U.S. troops: lack of political will in Iraq; the stress on the U.S. military and, finally, the domestic political climate. You can’t sustain a war without public approval. What Lugar said was “a big hat tip to everyone and the work we’ve done to create this toxic political environment,” (Lugar should take note of this praise and the fact that he is touting moveon's talking points. I'm sure his conservative constituents enjoy who he is siding with) says Matzzie. Faced with big losses in ’08, (no big gains) Republicans have to choose their survival over sticking with Bush. To get out from under the political heat, more than their vote has to change. The war has to end. (you won't end the WAR by Surrendering in Iraq, all you will do is make us more vulnerable, ya pinko)
Democrats need to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the Iraq War. (they are not powerless they can always cut the money)
Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 3:17 p.m. ET July 20, 2007
July 20, 2007 - The media treated the Senate’s all-night session as a comedy routine, a chance to make jokes about sleepovers and pizza delivery. Everybody knew going in that the Democrats didn’t have the votes to pass an amendment calling for the draw down of troops beginning in 120 days. But the Democrats needed to show they’re at least trying to bring about the change in policy they promised on the campaign trail last year. (so they put on a waste of time and money side show for their base, and the Press)
The operative emotion is anger. (ahh boo hoo) The voters are almost as furious with the Democrats for their inability to end the Iraq War as they are with President Bush for prolonging it. (no mention how they will feel when bombs go off in our streets and a million Iraqi's are killed by the Iranian death squads that will fill the void if we leave to quickly) Democrat Chellie Pingree lost by 16 points when she challenged Maine Republican Susan Collins in 2002. Now Collins, running for re-election in ’08, is on everybody’s endangered list. (good, she's a RINO) After much public agonizing, she became one of the four Republicans this week to break with Bush and vote with the Democrats on the war.
“It’s a different world,” says Pingree, who is running for the House seat in Maine being vacated by Democrat Tom Allen, who’s taking on Collins at much better odds than Pingree had five years ago. “You can’t be liberal enough,” (LOL) Pingree exclaimed at a crowded party in the Washington condo that liberal blogger Ariana Huffington rented for the month of July while her daughter interns with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Until she stepped down in January to return to Maine, Pingree headed Common Cause, a nonpartisan citizens’ lobbying group. Before that she served in the Maine Senate, where she rose to become majority leader. Voters don’t understand why the Democrats can’t work their will, she says, and excusing inaction with a civics lesson about cloture and the limits of power won’t get the party’s leadership off the hook. (the more the party does what it's doing the better the next election will turn out for the Republicans)
Democrats needed to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the war, even if they are. (they are NOT, they can always cut the funding, but they don't want to face the consequences of doing the only CONSTITUTIONAL option they have) They’re keeping the heat on, and that’s a good thing. GOP leader Mitch McConnell, outraged at the sleepover stunt, cited a Zogby poll taken before this week’s Senate action that found voters’ approval for the Democratic Congress has dropped to 14 percent—evidence to McConnell that the Democrats’ strategy is failing. Pollster John Zogby questions this interpretation, saying that Congress never does well no matter who’s in charge, and in post-Katrina America, government institutions are at a low point. Liberals in particular rate this Congress very low because of the war, which is why the least the Senate could do is pull an all-nighter. “I see this not as a stroke of desperation but something they have to do,” Zogby told NEWSWEEK. “They have to keep trying to end the war. They can’t be seen as throwing their arms up in the air and saying it’s impossible, or they’ll get these kind of numbers.” (that statement should raise a red flag, Zogby sounds like he has chosen sides. That wouldn't influence any of his POLS would it?)
By cutting off the debate and pulling the bill, the Democrats denied the Republicans the chance to vote on more moderate amendments that would have given them political cover with voters while doing nothing to end the war. The antiwar wing of the party doesn’t like compromise, so they applauded the decision to put off further action until September. “Now the ball’s in our court,” says Tom Matzzie, Washington director for MoveOn.org, (George Soros) one of several groups organizing antiwar campaigns in the home states of wavering Republicans. Matzzie talks regularly with Vietnam War activist Tom Hayden (Chicago 7) to get his thoughts about how to proceed, and how to avoid pitfalls. Hayden warned that the White House will try to divide the critics, and so Matzzie and others have worked hard to keep Senate Democrats unified. And they’ve countered White House efforts to demonize critics by putting Iraq veterans and military families in the forefront of demonstrations instead of liberal activists.
What we’re seeing is a political campaign to force the president to change policy, and it’s going to take until at least late fall. (and it will still fail) Matzzie says he didn’t expect major defections until September. “We’re ahead of schedule.” When Indiana Republican Richard Lugar spoke out on the Senate floor last month, he could have been reading from Matzzie’s talking points. The reasons Lugar gave for wanting to draw down U.S. troops: lack of political will in Iraq; the stress on the U.S. military and, finally, the domestic political climate. You can’t sustain a war without public approval. What Lugar said was “a big hat tip to everyone and the work we’ve done to create this toxic political environment,” (Lugar should take note of this praise and the fact that he is touting moveon's talking points. I'm sure his conservative constituents enjoy who he is siding with) says Matzzie. Faced with big losses in ’08, (no big gains) Republicans have to choose their survival over sticking with Bush. To get out from under the political heat, more than their vote has to change. The war has to end. (you won't end the WAR by Surrendering in Iraq, all you will do is make us more vulnerable, ya pinko)
An Iraqi's progress report
The following is a good article on the REAL situation in Iraq by an Iraqi. What is not mentioned in our press are some basic truths. The US has set up Democracies in the past, in both Japan and Germany. Both those countries it took 7YEARS. In South Korea it took 15, and in the most recent and most successful Democracy in the South American Hemisphere, Panama took 3. To demand the Iraqi's achieve it faster than Japan and Germany is something so stupid only a Democrat could come up with it. Not to even mention that 60 years later we still have troops in both of those countries.
Baghdad's national security chief lists the advances and argues for more time.
By Mowaffak Rubaie Baghdad, MOWAFFAK RUBAIE is Iraq's national security advisor.
July 21, 2007
Baghdad — IN THE AMERICAN media, Iraq's steady progress toward security is frequently overshadowed by news of the latest act of mass terrorism. Yet for those of us who actually live here, progress is visible to all but the most irreconcilable skeptics. Just this week, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the United Nations' special representative for Iraq, announced at a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq had achieved, or at least started to achieve, 75% of the benchmarks it set for itself in the U.N.-led International Compact with Iraq.
The military force increase by the United States called "the surge" is only one element in the Iraqi and coalition strategy. The other elements are the political/diplomatic initiatives and economic progress — and the reality is that the strategy is working in spite of the monumental obstacles presented by international terrorists and difficult conditions inside Iraq.
Iraqi and coalition security forces are having major success against Al Qaeda and some of the other groups that are the principal sources of the violence that aims to overthrow our young democracy. From Al Anbar to Diyala, from Nineveh to Basra, the atrocities of the terrorists against our people are backfiring, and our citizens are coming forward to offer themselves to counter them.
Increasingly, Iraqis are showing confidence in our steadily improving security forces by leading them to hidden weapons and terrorist locations.
Iraq is continuing to increase the size and capabilities of its forces in the expectation that soon it will be able to decrease its reliance on coalition forces for direct combat functions. In no other modern country has the creation of new forces been as rapid and effective as in Iraq.
We also recognize that we have a long way to go. In a number of "hot spots," we have not yet turned the tide, largely because of foreign interference. The most deadly weapons and explosives, including the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, enter Iraq from Iran. Ninety percent of the suicide bombers are foreigners; half of them are Saudi nationals; and the majority of these bombers enter Iraq through Syria. Nearly 90% of their victims are innocent Iraqi civilians. This cannot continue. We must persuade our neighbors to prevent terrorists and meddlers from using their territories as entry points into Iraq.
On the political and diplomatic fronts, we are also making steady progress. We have a government that requires consensus to make decisions. Unlike the dictatorial and authoritarian regimes of the past, our democracy cannot act quickly against the wishes of its constituents — something our supporters abroad should celebrate, not criticize.
Domestically, we have made major progress in establishing good governance throughout our provinces. Seven of the 18 are already in charge of their own security at the provincial level, with the Iraqi and coalition forces in support if, and only if, provincial authorities call for them in an emergency. This has happened only once among these seven provinces since they took over their own security responsibilities.
The Council of Ministers is moving forward on legislation where there is sufficient consensus for action. Areas in which this is well underway include petroleum, constitutional revision, provincial elections and the budget. The debate is untidy — perhaps as untidy as it often is in mature democracies. But the new system is working; we do not have a return of the "yes men."
Although we have had some major successes, Iraq is economically weak following decades of exploitation by the previous regime and militarily weak following the collapse of the former military machine. We need the help of the entire international community, especially our neighbors, to permit us to grow strong enough to cope with our domestic problems and become a self-reliant and positive, peaceful member of the region and the world.
In terms of our information campaign, we are countering the prevalent misinformation of the terrorists while working to remain transparent to the responsible media, granting them access to everything, including our military operations.
On balance, we are making remarkable progress, even on the so-called benchmarks. But much of this talk of U.S. benchmarks is misleading. Their components are part of the government program established by the prime minister and the policy council on national security in 2006, and certainly not the invention of the U.S. Congress.
We can only progress together. We urge and expect our good friends and steady supporters, especially the United States, to continue to stand with us against the terrorists while we build the processes and improve the effectiveness of our new political system.
Baghdad's national security chief lists the advances and argues for more time.
By Mowaffak Rubaie Baghdad, MOWAFFAK RUBAIE is Iraq's national security advisor.
July 21, 2007
Baghdad — IN THE AMERICAN media, Iraq's steady progress toward security is frequently overshadowed by news of the latest act of mass terrorism. Yet for those of us who actually live here, progress is visible to all but the most irreconcilable skeptics. Just this week, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the United Nations' special representative for Iraq, announced at a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq had achieved, or at least started to achieve, 75% of the benchmarks it set for itself in the U.N.-led International Compact with Iraq.
The military force increase by the United States called "the surge" is only one element in the Iraqi and coalition strategy. The other elements are the political/diplomatic initiatives and economic progress — and the reality is that the strategy is working in spite of the monumental obstacles presented by international terrorists and difficult conditions inside Iraq.
Iraqi and coalition security forces are having major success against Al Qaeda and some of the other groups that are the principal sources of the violence that aims to overthrow our young democracy. From Al Anbar to Diyala, from Nineveh to Basra, the atrocities of the terrorists against our people are backfiring, and our citizens are coming forward to offer themselves to counter them.
Increasingly, Iraqis are showing confidence in our steadily improving security forces by leading them to hidden weapons and terrorist locations.
Iraq is continuing to increase the size and capabilities of its forces in the expectation that soon it will be able to decrease its reliance on coalition forces for direct combat functions. In no other modern country has the creation of new forces been as rapid and effective as in Iraq.
We also recognize that we have a long way to go. In a number of "hot spots," we have not yet turned the tide, largely because of foreign interference. The most deadly weapons and explosives, including the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, enter Iraq from Iran. Ninety percent of the suicide bombers are foreigners; half of them are Saudi nationals; and the majority of these bombers enter Iraq through Syria. Nearly 90% of their victims are innocent Iraqi civilians. This cannot continue. We must persuade our neighbors to prevent terrorists and meddlers from using their territories as entry points into Iraq.
On the political and diplomatic fronts, we are also making steady progress. We have a government that requires consensus to make decisions. Unlike the dictatorial and authoritarian regimes of the past, our democracy cannot act quickly against the wishes of its constituents — something our supporters abroad should celebrate, not criticize.
Domestically, we have made major progress in establishing good governance throughout our provinces. Seven of the 18 are already in charge of their own security at the provincial level, with the Iraqi and coalition forces in support if, and only if, provincial authorities call for them in an emergency. This has happened only once among these seven provinces since they took over their own security responsibilities.
The Council of Ministers is moving forward on legislation where there is sufficient consensus for action. Areas in which this is well underway include petroleum, constitutional revision, provincial elections and the budget. The debate is untidy — perhaps as untidy as it often is in mature democracies. But the new system is working; we do not have a return of the "yes men."
Although we have had some major successes, Iraq is economically weak following decades of exploitation by the previous regime and militarily weak following the collapse of the former military machine. We need the help of the entire international community, especially our neighbors, to permit us to grow strong enough to cope with our domestic problems and become a self-reliant and positive, peaceful member of the region and the world.
In terms of our information campaign, we are countering the prevalent misinformation of the terrorists while working to remain transparent to the responsible media, granting them access to everything, including our military operations.
On balance, we are making remarkable progress, even on the so-called benchmarks. But much of this talk of U.S. benchmarks is misleading. Their components are part of the government program established by the prime minister and the policy council on national security in 2006, and certainly not the invention of the U.S. Congress.
We can only progress together. We urge and expect our good friends and steady supporters, especially the United States, to continue to stand with us against the terrorists while we build the processes and improve the effectiveness of our new political system.
Friday, July 20, 2007
The 20 Percent Solution
By Charles Krauthammer 
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19
Amid the Senate's all-night pillow fight and other Iraq grandstanding, real things are happening on the ground in Iraq. They consist of more than just a surge of U.S. troop levels. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.
Ever since the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the United States has been waiting for the central government in Baghdad to pass grand national accords on oil, federalism and de-Baathification to unify and pacify the country. The Maliki government has proved too sectarian, too weak and perhaps too disposed to Iranian interests to rise to the task.
The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda.
This has begun to happen in Anbar and Diyala. First, because al-Qaeda are foreigners. So are we, but -- reason No. 2 -- unlike them, we are not barbarous. We don't amputate fingers for smoking, decapitate with pleasure and kill Shiites for sport.
Third, al-Qaeda's objectives are not the Sunnis'. Al-Qaeda adherents live for endless war and a reborn caliphate. Ultimately, they live to die. Iraqi Sunnis are not looking for a heavenly date with 72 virgins. They are looking for a deal, and perhaps just survival after U.S. troops are gone.
That's why so many Sunnis have accepted Petraeus's bargain -- they join our fight against al-Qaeda, and we give them weaponry and military support. With that, they can rid themselves of the al-Qaeda cancer now. And later, when the Americans inevitably leave, they'll be better positioned to defend themselves against the 80 percent Shiite-Kurd majority they are beginning to realize they may have unwisely taken on.
The bargain is certainly working for us. The recent capture of the leading Iraqi in al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate is no accident, comrade. You capture such people only when you have good intelligence, and you have good intelligence only when the locals have turned against the terrorists.
The place of his capture -- Mosul -- is also telling. Mosul is where you go if you've been driven out of Anbar and Diyala and have no other good place to go. You don't venture into the Shiite south or the purely Kurdish north where the locals will kill you.
The charge against our previous war strategy was that we were playing whack-a-mole: They escape from here, they reestablish there. Petraeus's plan is to eliminate all al-Qaeda sanctuaries.
You hardly hear about that from the antiwar Democrats in the Senate. But you did hear it from someone closer to the scene: Shiite lawmaker and close Maliki adviser Hassan al-Suneid. He is none too happy with the new American strategy. He complained bitterly about the overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala. "These are gangs of killers," he told the Associated Press. Petraeus is following a plan according to a "purely American vision."
How very true and very refreshing. We had been vainly pursuing an Iraqi vision that depended on people such as Suneid and Maliki to make the grand bargain. So now, the American vision. "The strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period, but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said Suneid.
Again, he is precisely right. His coalition would not or could not disarm the militias. So Petraeus has taken on the two extremes: (a) the Shiite militias and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard enablers, and (b) al-Qaeda, with the help of local Sunnis.
For an interminable 18 months we waited for the 80 percent solution -- for Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-Kurdish coalition to reach out to the Sunnis. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy -- al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Maliki & Co. are afraid we are arming Sunnis for the civil war to come. On the other hand, we might be creating a rough balance of forces that would act as a deterrent to all-out civil war and encourage a relatively peaceful accommodation.
In either case, that will be Iraq's problem after we leave. For now, our problem is al-Qaeda on the Sunni side and the extremist militias on the Shiite side. And we are making enough headway to worry people such as Suneid. The Democrats might listen to him to understand how profoundly the situation is changing on the ground -- and think twice before they pull the plug on this complicated, ruthless, hopeful "purely American vision."
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19
Amid the Senate's all-night pillow fight and other Iraq grandstanding, real things are happening on the ground in Iraq. They consist of more than just a surge of U.S. troop levels. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.
Ever since the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the United States has been waiting for the central government in Baghdad to pass grand national accords on oil, federalism and de-Baathification to unify and pacify the country. The Maliki government has proved too sectarian, too weak and perhaps too disposed to Iranian interests to rise to the task.
The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda.
This has begun to happen in Anbar and Diyala. First, because al-Qaeda are foreigners. So are we, but -- reason No. 2 -- unlike them, we are not barbarous. We don't amputate fingers for smoking, decapitate with pleasure and kill Shiites for sport.
Third, al-Qaeda's objectives are not the Sunnis'. Al-Qaeda adherents live for endless war and a reborn caliphate. Ultimately, they live to die. Iraqi Sunnis are not looking for a heavenly date with 72 virgins. They are looking for a deal, and perhaps just survival after U.S. troops are gone.
That's why so many Sunnis have accepted Petraeus's bargain -- they join our fight against al-Qaeda, and we give them weaponry and military support. With that, they can rid themselves of the al-Qaeda cancer now. And later, when the Americans inevitably leave, they'll be better positioned to defend themselves against the 80 percent Shiite-Kurd majority they are beginning to realize they may have unwisely taken on.
The bargain is certainly working for us. The recent capture of the leading Iraqi in al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate is no accident, comrade. You capture such people only when you have good intelligence, and you have good intelligence only when the locals have turned against the terrorists.
The place of his capture -- Mosul -- is also telling. Mosul is where you go if you've been driven out of Anbar and Diyala and have no other good place to go. You don't venture into the Shiite south or the purely Kurdish north where the locals will kill you.
The charge against our previous war strategy was that we were playing whack-a-mole: They escape from here, they reestablish there. Petraeus's plan is to eliminate all al-Qaeda sanctuaries.
You hardly hear about that from the antiwar Democrats in the Senate. But you did hear it from someone closer to the scene: Shiite lawmaker and close Maliki adviser Hassan al-Suneid. He is none too happy with the new American strategy. He complained bitterly about the overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala. "These are gangs of killers," he told the Associated Press. Petraeus is following a plan according to a "purely American vision."
How very true and very refreshing. We had been vainly pursuing an Iraqi vision that depended on people such as Suneid and Maliki to make the grand bargain. So now, the American vision. "The strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period, but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said Suneid.
Again, he is precisely right. His coalition would not or could not disarm the militias. So Petraeus has taken on the two extremes: (a) the Shiite militias and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard enablers, and (b) al-Qaeda, with the help of local Sunnis.
For an interminable 18 months we waited for the 80 percent solution -- for Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-Kurdish coalition to reach out to the Sunnis. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy -- al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Maliki & Co. are afraid we are arming Sunnis for the civil war to come. On the other hand, we might be creating a rough balance of forces that would act as a deterrent to all-out civil war and encourage a relatively peaceful accommodation.
In either case, that will be Iraq's problem after we leave. For now, our problem is al-Qaeda on the Sunni side and the extremist militias on the Shiite side. And we are making enough headway to worry people such as Suneid. The Democrats might listen to him to understand how profoundly the situation is changing on the ground -- and think twice before they pull the plug on this complicated, ruthless, hopeful "purely American vision."
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Democrats would rather see you Dead!
Flying Imams -- Are Democrats Trying to Sink Pete King's Amendment? [Andy McCarthy]
In November 2006, six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis after they were observed acting suspiciously-including not sitting in their assigned seats, asking for seatbelt extenders although not needing them, and making anti-American statements. The men were questioned by authorities and then cleared. However, in March 2007, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the imams filed suit — not only against the airline but against the heroic "John Doe" passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
Congressman Pete King (R., NY), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, sprang quickly into action, concluding that the lawsuits were cheap attempts to intimidate everyday Americans from taking action to help protect our country. Congressman King introduced an amendment to protect passengers and commuters against frivolous lawsuits such as those filed by the imams. The language was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
The House-adopted King language ensures that any person who voluntarily reports suspicious activity in good faith-anything that could be a threat to transportation security-will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure. The amendment is specific to threats to transportation systems, passenger safety or security, or possible acts of terrorism, and also shields transportation systems and employees that take reasonable actions to mitigate perceived threats. The amendment is also retroactive to activities that took place on or after November 20, 2006 - the date of the Minneapolis incident.
I am reliably informed that House Democrats are attempting, under the radar screen, to strip the King Amendment from the legislation based on an alleged technical violation of Byzantine House rules.
As Pete King's office notes, in a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to our security. Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense. Failing to report suspicious behavior could end up costing thousands of lives — and while the "flying imams" don't seem to understand this, the American people do. We must make certain that brave citizens who stand up and say something are given the protections they deserve. The King amendment does exactly that, and Democrats musn't be allowed to strip it from the 9/11 conference report on a technicality.
Democrats
In November 2006, six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis after they were observed acting suspiciously-including not sitting in their assigned seats, asking for seatbelt extenders although not needing them, and making anti-American statements. The men were questioned by authorities and then cleared. However, in March 2007, with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the imams filed suit — not only against the airline but against the heroic "John Doe" passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
Congressman Pete King (R., NY), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, sprang quickly into action, concluding that the lawsuits were cheap attempts to intimidate everyday Americans from taking action to help protect our country. Congressman King introduced an amendment to protect passengers and commuters against frivolous lawsuits such as those filed by the imams. The language was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
The House-adopted King language ensures that any person who voluntarily reports suspicious activity in good faith-anything that could be a threat to transportation security-will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure. The amendment is specific to threats to transportation systems, passenger safety or security, or possible acts of terrorism, and also shields transportation systems and employees that take reasonable actions to mitigate perceived threats. The amendment is also retroactive to activities that took place on or after November 20, 2006 - the date of the Minneapolis incident.
I am reliably informed that House Democrats are attempting, under the radar screen, to strip the King Amendment from the legislation based on an alleged technical violation of Byzantine House rules.
As Pete King's office notes, in a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to our security. Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense. Failing to report suspicious behavior could end up costing thousands of lives — and while the "flying imams" don't seem to understand this, the American people do. We must make certain that brave citizens who stand up and say something are given the protections they deserve. The King amendment does exactly that, and Democrats musn't be allowed to strip it from the 9/11 conference report on a technicality.
Democrats
Al-Qaeda in Iran (CM)
Eli Lake writes in the NY Sun:
One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure.
That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The estimate, which represents the opinion of America's intelligence agencies, is now finished, and unclassified conclusions will be shared today with the public. …
The judgment that Iran has hosted Al Qaeda's senior leadership council is likely to draw some criticism from those outside the government who doubt Iran plays a significant role in bolstering Sunni jihadist terrorism. Iran's Shiite Muslims are considered infidels by the Salafi sect of Sunnis that comprise Al Qaeda.
While there is little disagreement that a branch of Al Qaeda's leadership operates in Iran, the intelligence community diverges on the extent to which the hosting of the senior leaders represents a policy of the regime in Tehran or the rogue actions of Iran's Quds Force, the terrorist support units that report directly to Iran's supreme leader. …
An intelligence official sympathetic to the view that it is a matter of Iranian policy to cooperate with Al Qaeda disputed the CIA and State Department view that the Quds Force is operating as a rogue force. "It is just impossible to believe that what the Quds Force does with Al Qaeda does not represent a decision of the government," the official, who asked not to be identified, said. "It's a bit like saying the directorate of operations for the CIA is not really carrying out U.S. policy."
Some intelligence reporting suggests, the source said, that the current chief of the Quds Force, General Qassem Sulamani, has met with Saad bin Laden, Mr. Adel, and Mr. Abu Ghaith.
The link between Iran and Al Qaeda is not new, in some cases. The bipartisan September 11 commission report, for example, concluded: "There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."
According to the commission, a senior Al Qaeda coordinator, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, said eight of the September 11 hijackers went through Iran on their way to and from Afghanistan.
In 2005, both Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and the then ambassador at large for counterterrorism, Cofer Black, disclosed that America believes that senior Al Qaeda leaders reside in Iran.
More here.
Iran
One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure.
That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The estimate, which represents the opinion of America's intelligence agencies, is now finished, and unclassified conclusions will be shared today with the public. …
The judgment that Iran has hosted Al Qaeda's senior leadership council is likely to draw some criticism from those outside the government who doubt Iran plays a significant role in bolstering Sunni jihadist terrorism. Iran's Shiite Muslims are considered infidels by the Salafi sect of Sunnis that comprise Al Qaeda.
While there is little disagreement that a branch of Al Qaeda's leadership operates in Iran, the intelligence community diverges on the extent to which the hosting of the senior leaders represents a policy of the regime in Tehran or the rogue actions of Iran's Quds Force, the terrorist support units that report directly to Iran's supreme leader. …
An intelligence official sympathetic to the view that it is a matter of Iranian policy to cooperate with Al Qaeda disputed the CIA and State Department view that the Quds Force is operating as a rogue force. "It is just impossible to believe that what the Quds Force does with Al Qaeda does not represent a decision of the government," the official, who asked not to be identified, said. "It's a bit like saying the directorate of operations for the CIA is not really carrying out U.S. policy."
Some intelligence reporting suggests, the source said, that the current chief of the Quds Force, General Qassem Sulamani, has met with Saad bin Laden, Mr. Adel, and Mr. Abu Ghaith.
The link between Iran and Al Qaeda is not new, in some cases. The bipartisan September 11 commission report, for example, concluded: "There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."
According to the commission, a senior Al Qaeda coordinator, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, said eight of the September 11 hijackers went through Iran on their way to and from Afghanistan.
In 2005, both Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and the then ambassador at large for counterterrorism, Cofer Black, disclosed that America believes that senior Al Qaeda leaders reside in Iran.
More here.
Iran
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Our Boy Murtha
What's in your wallet?
What's a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?
Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.
Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.
Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.
After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"
"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."
And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.
Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.
As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?
By Patrick O'Connor 05:09 PM
What's a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?
Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.
Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.
Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.
After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"
"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."
And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.
Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.
As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?
By Patrick O'Connor 05:09 PM
Murtha
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
An All Night Surrenderfest Compliments of the Democrats
Today the Senate is Debating All Night on Iraq
Not on how to win and get the job accomplished, but on how to deny our troops Re enforcements, Ammo, and food. Making the task more difficult while causing the unnecessary deaths of additional soldiers.
Why would they do this it's simple, they can't win elections if we win the war. They insist that retreating from fighting the terrorists in Iraq will give us a victory over Terror.
Never mind that the enemy has stated that Iraq is the main front on the war on the infidels, and has told their fighters to hold out against the onslaught of defeat that they are facing do to the surge. They have told their fighters they are winning and as proof they have offered up the words and actions of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Never mind that the enemy has stated that when we flee in fear from Iraq that they will then be free to attack the US at home. No Nancy and Harry assure us that this is how we will be made safe.
The price of 3617 dead in the war is to high. It is better to fight Al-Queda, Hezbollah, and Iran on the streets of Philly, NY, L.A. and London. Any civilian casualties that we will suffer are George Bush's fault.
Never mind that the enemy has said over and over that we will either submit to Allah or die. They really don't mean us any harm, at least as long as we vote for Democrats.
These ASSHOLES that we have elected to represent us have made the conscious decision that Americans and Brits should die in the streets at the hands of Jihadi car bombs and suicide bombers. Just so they can blame Bush and the Republicans in their campaigns.
I make a pledge to not give a dime to the Republican party if the RNC gives one ounce of support to ANY Republican that joins this insanity. I will also actively campaign AGAINST any and all candidates that support the Democrats in this effort to gain congressional seats by the deaths of American Civilians.
Iraq
Democrats
Not on how to win and get the job accomplished, but on how to deny our troops Re enforcements, Ammo, and food. Making the task more difficult while causing the unnecessary deaths of additional soldiers.
Why would they do this it's simple, they can't win elections if we win the war. They insist that retreating from fighting the terrorists in Iraq will give us a victory over Terror.
Never mind that the enemy has stated that Iraq is the main front on the war on the infidels, and has told their fighters to hold out against the onslaught of defeat that they are facing do to the surge. They have told their fighters they are winning and as proof they have offered up the words and actions of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Never mind that the enemy has stated that when we flee in fear from Iraq that they will then be free to attack the US at home. No Nancy and Harry assure us that this is how we will be made safe.
The price of 3617 dead in the war is to high. It is better to fight Al-Queda, Hezbollah, and Iran on the streets of Philly, NY, L.A. and London. Any civilian casualties that we will suffer are George Bush's fault.
Never mind that the enemy has said over and over that we will either submit to Allah or die. They really don't mean us any harm, at least as long as we vote for Democrats.
These ASSHOLES that we have elected to represent us have made the conscious decision that Americans and Brits should die in the streets at the hands of Jihadi car bombs and suicide bombers. Just so they can blame Bush and the Republicans in their campaigns.
I make a pledge to not give a dime to the Republican party if the RNC gives one ounce of support to ANY Republican that joins this insanity. I will also actively campaign AGAINST any and all candidates that support the Democrats in this effort to gain congressional seats by the deaths of American Civilians.
Iraq
Democrats
After Iraq "And then what?"
By Thomas Sowell
"And then what?" That is the question which should be asked of those who are demanding that we pull out of Iraq now.
No candid answer should be expected from cynical politicians like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have their bets riding big time on an American defeat in Iraq, as their ticket to winning the 2008 elections.
But that question should be answered by those who honestly and sincerely think that a troop pullout is the answer to the Iraq problem. What do they think will happen if we do?
That question is studiously avoided by those in politics and the media who urge pulling out.
Those who deal in talking points may believe, or claim to believe, that there will be no further repercussions. But those who have to confront the real world know that pulling out now is a formula for a bigger disaster than anything that has already happened in Iraq.
Should American troops stay in Iraq indefinitely?
Nobody has ever wanted that. Our whole history shows that American troops have repeatedly pulled out of countries around the world when wars ended and enough order was restored to turn the country over to its own people.
The political conflict today is between people who think that pulling out should depend on conditions in Iraq, as those conditions unfold, rather than on arbitrary timetables created by politicians with no military experience, and with a time horizon that extends no further than the 2008 elections.
Those who say that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror seem not to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously think otherwise.
Terrorists are pouring men and military equipment into Iraq, with the help of Iran, and using suicide bombers there for some reason.
Terrorists recognize the high stakes in the outcome of this war, even if growing numbers of people over here refuse to.
To drive the United States out of Iraq would be a huge victory for the terrorists, attracting both recruits and support from around the world, and causing countries around the world to reconsider their ties to the United States.
International cooperation is essential to thwarting and disrupting terrorist activities, through such things as intelligence sharing among nations and clampdowns on the international money flows that finance terrorist activities.
But how many countries will continue to cooperate with the United States when they know that the terrorists are in this for the long haul, while the U.S. can abandon them to their fate at any moment, whenever it becomes politically expedient at home?
Terrorist or Iranian control of Iraq would give them enormous leverage with other countries in the Middle East, putting control of the oil that is the lifeblood of Western economies in the hands of implacable and ruthless enemies.
With more resources to finance more international terrorism, does anyone think the terrorists will spare the United States?
Much has been made of how long we have already stayed in Iraq, the casualties, and the mistakes that have been made. But both deaths and mistakes have always been inseparable from war.
As for how long we have been in Iraq, the cost of a war is not measured in time. It is measured in lives lost.
While our media are impatiently waiting for the 4,000th American death in Iraq that they can trumpet, and rub our noses in -- in the name of "honoring the troops" -- we need to understand that casualty rates in Iraq are low, as wars go.
If and when that 4,000th American death in Iraq is reached, we need to recall that more Marines than that were lost taking one island in the Pacific during World War II.
During the Civil War, more than twice as many Union soldiers as that were killed -- in one day -- at the battle of Shiloh, and again at Gettysburg.
The "war on terror" is a misleading phrase. It is the terrorists' war against us -- and it is not something that we can unilaterally call off. Our only choice is where to fight it, over there or over here.
Iraq
Congress
"And then what?" That is the question which should be asked of those who are demanding that we pull out of Iraq now.
No candid answer should be expected from cynical politicians like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have their bets riding big time on an American defeat in Iraq, as their ticket to winning the 2008 elections.
But that question should be answered by those who honestly and sincerely think that a troop pullout is the answer to the Iraq problem. What do they think will happen if we do?
That question is studiously avoided by those in politics and the media who urge pulling out.
Those who deal in talking points may believe, or claim to believe, that there will be no further repercussions. But those who have to confront the real world know that pulling out now is a formula for a bigger disaster than anything that has already happened in Iraq.
Should American troops stay in Iraq indefinitely?
Nobody has ever wanted that. Our whole history shows that American troops have repeatedly pulled out of countries around the world when wars ended and enough order was restored to turn the country over to its own people.
The political conflict today is between people who think that pulling out should depend on conditions in Iraq, as those conditions unfold, rather than on arbitrary timetables created by politicians with no military experience, and with a time horizon that extends no further than the 2008 elections.
Those who say that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror seem not to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously think otherwise.
Terrorists are pouring men and military equipment into Iraq, with the help of Iran, and using suicide bombers there for some reason.
Terrorists recognize the high stakes in the outcome of this war, even if growing numbers of people over here refuse to.
To drive the United States out of Iraq would be a huge victory for the terrorists, attracting both recruits and support from around the world, and causing countries around the world to reconsider their ties to the United States.
International cooperation is essential to thwarting and disrupting terrorist activities, through such things as intelligence sharing among nations and clampdowns on the international money flows that finance terrorist activities.
But how many countries will continue to cooperate with the United States when they know that the terrorists are in this for the long haul, while the U.S. can abandon them to their fate at any moment, whenever it becomes politically expedient at home?
Terrorist or Iranian control of Iraq would give them enormous leverage with other countries in the Middle East, putting control of the oil that is the lifeblood of Western economies in the hands of implacable and ruthless enemies.
With more resources to finance more international terrorism, does anyone think the terrorists will spare the United States?
Much has been made of how long we have already stayed in Iraq, the casualties, and the mistakes that have been made. But both deaths and mistakes have always been inseparable from war.
As for how long we have been in Iraq, the cost of a war is not measured in time. It is measured in lives lost.
While our media are impatiently waiting for the 4,000th American death in Iraq that they can trumpet, and rub our noses in -- in the name of "honoring the troops" -- we need to understand that casualty rates in Iraq are low, as wars go.
If and when that 4,000th American death in Iraq is reached, we need to recall that more Marines than that were lost taking one island in the Pacific during World War II.
During the Civil War, more than twice as many Union soldiers as that were killed -- in one day -- at the battle of Shiloh, and again at Gettysburg.
The "war on terror" is a misleading phrase. It is the terrorists' war against us -- and it is not something that we can unilaterally call off. Our only choice is where to fight it, over there or over here.
Iraq
Congress
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Keep on Surgin'
Bush is beating them back.
by William Kristol
07/23/2007, Volume 012, Issue 42
I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.
--George W. Bush, press conference, July 12, 2007
President Bush is absolutely right. But in a way his admonition to Congress at his press conference last week was unfair. He's correct that Congress can't run a war. But this Congress doesn't want to run a war. It wants to lose a war. Congress can, in principle, achieve this, and the Democrats who control this Congress are doing their best to bring it about.
In the process, congressional Democrats are also doing a good job of re-McGovernizing their party. Last week, 95 percent of Democrats in the House voted in favor of legislation requiring that the United States withdraw most combat troops from Iraq by April 1, 2008. The notion that their party is serious about any policy alternative other than getting out and giving up is becoming unsustainable. It may be, though, that calling this the re-McGovernization of that party is unfair to George McGovern--especially as his friends assembled in Washington this weekend to celebrate his 85th birthday. It is worth noting, after all, that Vietnam wasn't nearly as central to U.S. security interests as Iraq--and that McGovern had a coherent, if mistaken, world view that guided his actions in a principled way. So it would be unjust to George McGovern to call these Democrats McGovernites. We'll just call them Defeatists, who are willing to ensure a U.S. defeat for the sake of destroying the
Bush administration.
The Defeatist Democrats have lots of support from the mainstream media, most of whom have simply given up on reporting the war or analyzing arguments about the war. Actually, the newsmen who know something, like John F. Burns and Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times, have produced some terrific reporting. But run-of-the-mill foreign policy and White House reporters have little interest in what is actually happening in Iraq, or in a real consideration of the likely outcomes of different policy options. They're not even reporting what's happening in Washington. They're simply committed to discrediting the war and humiliating the Bush administration.
As for the foreign policy establishment and its fellow travelers in the punditocracy, one might have thought they could be serious about this war--actually analyzing events, engaging in a grown-up debate about the real-world consequences of different courses of action, keeping calm amid the political posturing. Many in the Bush administration who care for their standing in the establishment's eyes have spent an awful lot of time cultivating these masters of nuance and complexity. All for naught. The establishment, like the media and the Democrats, wants to discredit and humiliate an administration that too often (though not often enough!) dared to think for itself, and to act without their permission. They're out to destroy Bush, his ideas, and his supporters, no matter the consequences for the country.
Over the last few weeks, all of these estimable entities--the Democratic party in Congress, much of the media, and the foreign policy establishment--have joined together to try to panic the country, and the Bush administration, into giving up. The story of the past week--an important week--is this: They failed. Many around Bush wobbled. But Bush stood firm. Most Republicans on the Hill stood firm. And, so far as one can tell, the country as a whole pulled back a bit from the irresponsibility of cutting and running.
Now, the assumption in the media, and among most in the political world, remains that the Defeatists have the momentum, that Bush is fighting a rearguard action, and that his retreat at home, and U.S. defeat abroad, are basically inevitable.
But what if this week is a harbinger of things to come? What if the Defeatists have overplayed their hand? What if they continue to sound the tocsin of defeat--and the president, and the commanders, and the soldiers, don't snap to and obey? What if the surge continues to show better and better results, and the Bush administration does a more effective job of communicating them? If so, this past week could turn out to have been a pivotal moment in the Iraq war.
Over the last few months, the United States (finally) surged in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq has now surged against the surge. Iran is surging against the surge. We're pushing them back. Now the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, and the foreign policy establishment have mounted their own surges against the surge. So far, Bush is beating them back. If Bush can hang tough, and General Petraeus can keep on surging, the Defeatists will fail. And the United States will have a good chance to succeed in Iraq.
--William Kristol
by William Kristol
07/23/2007, Volume 012, Issue 42
I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.
--George W. Bush, press conference, July 12, 2007
President Bush is absolutely right. But in a way his admonition to Congress at his press conference last week was unfair. He's correct that Congress can't run a war. But this Congress doesn't want to run a war. It wants to lose a war. Congress can, in principle, achieve this, and the Democrats who control this Congress are doing their best to bring it about.
In the process, congressional Democrats are also doing a good job of re-McGovernizing their party. Last week, 95 percent of Democrats in the House voted in favor of legislation requiring that the United States withdraw most combat troops from Iraq by April 1, 2008. The notion that their party is serious about any policy alternative other than getting out and giving up is becoming unsustainable. It may be, though, that calling this the re-McGovernization of that party is unfair to George McGovern--especially as his friends assembled in Washington this weekend to celebrate his 85th birthday. It is worth noting, after all, that Vietnam wasn't nearly as central to U.S. security interests as Iraq--and that McGovern had a coherent, if mistaken, world view that guided his actions in a principled way. So it would be unjust to George McGovern to call these Democrats McGovernites. We'll just call them Defeatists, who are willing to ensure a U.S. defeat for the sake of destroying the
Bush administration.
The Defeatist Democrats have lots of support from the mainstream media, most of whom have simply given up on reporting the war or analyzing arguments about the war. Actually, the newsmen who know something, like John F. Burns and Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times, have produced some terrific reporting. But run-of-the-mill foreign policy and White House reporters have little interest in what is actually happening in Iraq, or in a real consideration of the likely outcomes of different policy options. They're not even reporting what's happening in Washington. They're simply committed to discrediting the war and humiliating the Bush administration.
As for the foreign policy establishment and its fellow travelers in the punditocracy, one might have thought they could be serious about this war--actually analyzing events, engaging in a grown-up debate about the real-world consequences of different courses of action, keeping calm amid the political posturing. Many in the Bush administration who care for their standing in the establishment's eyes have spent an awful lot of time cultivating these masters of nuance and complexity. All for naught. The establishment, like the media and the Democrats, wants to discredit and humiliate an administration that too often (though not often enough!) dared to think for itself, and to act without their permission. They're out to destroy Bush, his ideas, and his supporters, no matter the consequences for the country.
Over the last few weeks, all of these estimable entities--the Democratic party in Congress, much of the media, and the foreign policy establishment--have joined together to try to panic the country, and the Bush administration, into giving up. The story of the past week--an important week--is this: They failed. Many around Bush wobbled. But Bush stood firm. Most Republicans on the Hill stood firm. And, so far as one can tell, the country as a whole pulled back a bit from the irresponsibility of cutting and running.
Now, the assumption in the media, and among most in the political world, remains that the Defeatists have the momentum, that Bush is fighting a rearguard action, and that his retreat at home, and U.S. defeat abroad, are basically inevitable.
But what if this week is a harbinger of things to come? What if the Defeatists have overplayed their hand? What if they continue to sound the tocsin of defeat--and the president, and the commanders, and the soldiers, don't snap to and obey? What if the surge continues to show better and better results, and the Bush administration does a more effective job of communicating them? If so, this past week could turn out to have been a pivotal moment in the Iraq war.
Over the last few months, the United States (finally) surged in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq has now surged against the surge. Iran is surging against the surge. We're pushing them back. Now the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, and the foreign policy establishment have mounted their own surges against the surge. So far, Bush is beating them back. If Bush can hang tough, and General Petraeus can keep on surging, the Defeatists will fail. And the United States will have a good chance to succeed in Iraq.
--William Kristol
Ed Schultz Poster Child for The Fairness Doctrine
Democrats block amendment to prevent Fairness Doctrine
On Friday the 13Th the Democrats blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Now according to the AP reporter that wrote the above article no one has any plans on bringing the fairness doctrine back.
Well in my opinion that's Bullshit. The Democrat Leadership definitely wants to bring it back and some of the same idiots on the right that are joining them on issues like Amnesty for ILLEGALS, and cutting our troops in the field would surely join them on this.
There are some real Americans left in Congress like South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman who see this attack on conservative free speech not only coming, but concerned enough to introduce legislation to try and prevent it.
Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat squashed the Amendment saying it didn't belong on a Military appropriations bill and "because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq."
The real force behind reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine is Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Here is an exchange taken from the AP story that Turbin had on the floor with Coleman.
That last paragraph is the base of their ploy on why they can control the Airways, but that's not enough to sell it what they need is a victim. So in comes Ed Schultz a liberal talk radio host. Schultz has talent and a radio show that airs on 100 stations, with an audience of about 3 million a week. Not bad for a lib.
Schultz however can't break into some markets that he wants to be in. So instead of getting a better promoter or agent, he wants to force conservative talk shows off the air to make way for him, and he wants congress to help him do it.
Here is more from the AP piece:
Now I live in the Philly Market and there are only two conservative talk radio stations. 1210am The Big Talker, and 990 WNTP. During Schultz time slot the two people on those stations are Rush and Prager. So which one do you think he wants the government to force off?
Now Philly is not a town with limited Radio channels. There are several Progressive ones. 900am WURD and 90.9fm NPR. Just to name a few. Now why isn't he upset that those channels won't air his program?
Ed is a typical Lib, he can't rely on his talent alone to get an audience he has to force himself into a market so that the unwashed, uneducated masses in that market once they are forced to listen to him will be so overwhelmed with his views that we will all see the light (like he did) and become good little Libs.
They are coming after our Free Speech, They are Marxists and want to control our sources of information just like they do in Iran and N Korea.
UPDATE: July 15th, This morning on C-Spans Washington Journal the first segment was a call in on the Fairness Doctrine. There were at least 3 different people who spoke and e-mailed the same exact words. All Stating that Ed Schultz was being shut out of Philadelphia and that Philly had NO Liberal Stations. The shills are out there folks watch as more pop up this week when Schultz goes to Washington to lie to Congress.
Fairness Doctrine
Ed Schultz
Philadelphia
On Friday the 13Th the Democrats blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Now according to the AP reporter that wrote the above article no one has any plans on bringing the fairness doctrine back.
Well in my opinion that's Bullshit. The Democrat Leadership definitely wants to bring it back and some of the same idiots on the right that are joining them on issues like Amnesty for ILLEGALS, and cutting our troops in the field would surely join them on this.
There are some real Americans left in Congress like South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman who see this attack on conservative free speech not only coming, but concerned enough to introduce legislation to try and prevent it.
Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat squashed the Amendment saying it didn't belong on a Military appropriations bill and "because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq."
The real force behind reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine is Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Here is an exchange taken from the AP story that Turbin had on the floor with Coleman.
Durbin and Coleman briefly debated the idea on the Senate floor Friday, with
Durbin asking Coleman if he believed it serves the interests of an educated
electorate if people could hear both sides of the story.
"Absolutely,"
Coleman responded. "But I believe - strongly believe - that the government
should not be in the position of deciding and dictating, 'now here is the other
side.'" He said with the proliferation of communication options such as the
Internet, Americans have plenty of opportunity to get the other side.
"The airwaves belong to the American people," Durbin said. "Those who
profit from them do by permission of the people through their government." He
said that broadcasters should provide both points of view on an issue.
That last paragraph is the base of their ploy on why they can control the Airways, but that's not enough to sell it what they need is a victim. So in comes Ed Schultz a liberal talk radio host. Schultz has talent and a radio show that airs on 100 stations, with an audience of about 3 million a week. Not bad for a lib.
Schultz however can't break into some markets that he wants to be in. So instead of getting a better promoter or agent, he wants to force conservative talk shows off the air to make way for him, and he wants congress to help him do it.
Here is more from the AP piece:
Ed Schultz, a North Dakota-based liberal-leaning talk show host who has more
than 3 million listeners on more than 100 stations, also said the airwaves
belong to the public.
He said the Republicans' efforts are
overreactions, and said he is traveling to Washington next week to talk to talk
to Democrats about the issue.
"The issue is liberal talkers haven't even
been given a market opportunity in many markets across the country," he said.
He is frustrated because his show is not airing in such major markets as
Boston and Philadelphia, where he says certain companies are keeping progressive
shows out.
"I'm just open to hearing these conservative companies
explain their thought process," he said.
Now I live in the Philly Market and there are only two conservative talk radio stations. 1210am The Big Talker, and 990 WNTP. During Schultz time slot the two people on those stations are Rush and Prager. So which one do you think he wants the government to force off?
Now Philly is not a town with limited Radio channels. There are several Progressive ones. 900am WURD and 90.9fm NPR. Just to name a few. Now why isn't he upset that those channels won't air his program?
Ed is a typical Lib, he can't rely on his talent alone to get an audience he has to force himself into a market so that the unwashed, uneducated masses in that market once they are forced to listen to him will be so overwhelmed with his views that we will all see the light (like he did) and become good little Libs.
They are coming after our Free Speech, They are Marxists and want to control our sources of information just like they do in Iran and N Korea.
UPDATE: July 15th, This morning on C-Spans Washington Journal the first segment was a call in on the Fairness Doctrine. There were at least 3 different people who spoke and e-mailed the same exact words. All Stating that Ed Schultz was being shut out of Philadelphia and that Philly had NO Liberal Stations. The shills are out there folks watch as more pop up this week when Schultz goes to Washington to lie to Congress.
Fairness Doctrine
Ed Schultz
Philadelphia
Friday, July 13, 2007
Iran starts an attack on the dollar
Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately (Update1)
By Megumi Yamanaka
July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Iran asked Japanese refiners to switch to the yen to pay for all crude oil purchases, after Iran's central bank said it's cutting holdings of the U.S. dollar.
Iran wants yen-based transactions ``for any/all of your forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings,'' according to a letter sent to Japanese refiners that was signed by Ali A. Arshi, general manager of crude oil marketing and exports in Tehran at the National Iranian Oil Co. The request is for all shipments ``effective immediately,'' according to the letter, dated July 10 and obtained by Bloomberg News.
War
Iran
By Megumi Yamanaka
July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Iran asked Japanese refiners to switch to the yen to pay for all crude oil purchases, after Iran's central bank said it's cutting holdings of the U.S. dollar.
Iran wants yen-based transactions ``for any/all of your forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings,'' according to a letter sent to Japanese refiners that was signed by Ali A. Arshi, general manager of crude oil marketing and exports in Tehran at the National Iranian Oil Co. The request is for all shipments ``effective immediately,'' according to the letter, dated July 10 and obtained by Bloomberg News.
War
Iran
Give Petraeus This Chance
The stakes are too high not to.
By Charles Krauthammer
Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq’s territory) lost to al Qaeda. Now, in what the Times’s John Burns calls an “astonishing success,” the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.
It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases, but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar.
The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province — just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar — where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades have turned against al Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces.
We don’t yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure. But what cannot be said — although it is now heard daily in Washington — is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus’s new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug.
It is understandable that Sens. Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, Snowe, and Warner may no longer trust President Bush’s judgment when he tells them to wait until Petraeus reports in September. What is not understandable is the vote of no confidence they are passing on Petraeus. These are the same senators who sent him back to Iraq by an 81-0 vote to institute his new counterinsurgency strategy.
A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.
Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus’s plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.
That’s the logic of the wobbly Republicans’ position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government’s inability to meet the required political “benchmarks.” As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.
But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.
The costs are heartbreakingly high — increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.
In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism, and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost — al Qaeda.
Krauthammer
War
By Charles Krauthammer
The key to turning (Anbar) around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks.
But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi
forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run.
— New
York Times, July 8
Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq’s territory) lost to al Qaeda. Now, in what the Times’s John Burns calls an “astonishing success,” the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.
It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases, but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar.
The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province — just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar — where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades have turned against al Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces.
We don’t yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure. But what cannot be said — although it is now heard daily in Washington — is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus’s new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug.
It is understandable that Sens. Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, Snowe, and Warner may no longer trust President Bush’s judgment when he tells them to wait until Petraeus reports in September. What is not understandable is the vote of no confidence they are passing on Petraeus. These are the same senators who sent him back to Iraq by an 81-0 vote to institute his new counterinsurgency strategy.
A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.
Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus’s plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.
That’s the logic of the wobbly Republicans’ position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government’s inability to meet the required political “benchmarks.” As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.
But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.
The costs are heartbreakingly high — increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.
In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism, and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost — al Qaeda.
Krauthammer
War
Wrong on Immigration, but Right on the Islamic Threat
Jon Kyl on Blaming America
There are those at home who are members of what was called the "blame America first" crowd, which is a term coined by my good friend, the late ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to say that the Islamists hate us because of what we do. They allegedly hate us because we don't do enough to fight poverty, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because of Iraq, or because of the latest Danish cartoon or whatever.
Of course this is nonsense. The radical ideology that spawns this terrorism has nothing to do with such grievances or poverty. The perpetrators of the plots in Great Britain were doctors, not individuals radicalized by unemployment or poverty-stricken slums. …
Militant Islam seeks not to change our policies but to destroy our very way of life and replace it with a Taliban-like society ruled by Sharia Law and its enforcers.
Militant Islam has declared war on the West. Be very clear about it. It is fundamentally at odds with freedom, with democracy, with the inherent humanity of the individual, with critical thinking, and rational decision-making, not to mention all other religious beliefs. While it might be fueled by grievances, it is not caused by the West, but rather by the very backwardness and ideological rigidity that they would impose on others. …
We should be clear that militant Islam, though bound together by common ideology, comes in various stripes, including:
al Qaeda, responsible for 9/11, which may have inspired the recent terror plots in Great Britain;
Iran's radical regime whose leader vows to wipe Israel off the map and envisions a world without America and which is speeding toward the development of nuclear weapons;
Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia which is funding radical ideology and mosques and madrassas over the world, including here at home;
groups like the Muslim Brotherhood which cloaks its radical ideology in a new veneer of tolerance while its activities directly support terrorist groups like Hamas, and many others.
But state-sponsored testing of the United States and the West is also in full force.
Iran is testing our resolve in Iraq where it is using its Revolutionary Guard and also its terrorist client Hezbollah to train and arm those who are fighting our soldiers.
Iran is testing the resolve of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, where it is providing support to al Qaeda.
Syria is testing our resolve in Lebanon where it is assassinating anti-Syrian officeholders, all serving as a conduit for the weapons that are rearming Hezbollah.
Hamas and other terrorist client of Iran is testing our resolve in Gaza, where it launched a successful coup against the Palestinian authority of Mahmoud Abbas. …
[A] successful American response depends on resolve and support of the American people. We must understand the nature of our enemy and its ideology, confronting them head on with full confidence in the rightness of our cause. …
We must not reward evil with retreat from any of the battlefields where the fight is raging, including Iraq and Afghanistan. And we must be willing to support intelligence and enforcement activities, including incarcerating those who have plotted against or attacked us.
More here.
War
There are those at home who are members of what was called the "blame America first" crowd, which is a term coined by my good friend, the late ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to say that the Islamists hate us because of what we do. They allegedly hate us because we don't do enough to fight poverty, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because of Iraq, or because of the latest Danish cartoon or whatever.
Of course this is nonsense. The radical ideology that spawns this terrorism has nothing to do with such grievances or poverty. The perpetrators of the plots in Great Britain were doctors, not individuals radicalized by unemployment or poverty-stricken slums. …
Militant Islam seeks not to change our policies but to destroy our very way of life and replace it with a Taliban-like society ruled by Sharia Law and its enforcers.
Militant Islam has declared war on the West. Be very clear about it. It is fundamentally at odds with freedom, with democracy, with the inherent humanity of the individual, with critical thinking, and rational decision-making, not to mention all other religious beliefs. While it might be fueled by grievances, it is not caused by the West, but rather by the very backwardness and ideological rigidity that they would impose on others. …
We should be clear that militant Islam, though bound together by common ideology, comes in various stripes, including:
al Qaeda, responsible for 9/11, which may have inspired the recent terror plots in Great Britain;
Iran's radical regime whose leader vows to wipe Israel off the map and envisions a world without America and which is speeding toward the development of nuclear weapons;
Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia which is funding radical ideology and mosques and madrassas over the world, including here at home;
groups like the Muslim Brotherhood which cloaks its radical ideology in a new veneer of tolerance while its activities directly support terrorist groups like Hamas, and many others.
But state-sponsored testing of the United States and the West is also in full force.
Iran is testing our resolve in Iraq where it is using its Revolutionary Guard and also its terrorist client Hezbollah to train and arm those who are fighting our soldiers.
Iran is testing the resolve of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, where it is providing support to al Qaeda.
Syria is testing our resolve in Lebanon where it is assassinating anti-Syrian officeholders, all serving as a conduit for the weapons that are rearming Hezbollah.
Hamas and other terrorist client of Iran is testing our resolve in Gaza, where it launched a successful coup against the Palestinian authority of Mahmoud Abbas. …
[A] successful American response depends on resolve and support of the American people. We must understand the nature of our enemy and its ideology, confronting them head on with full confidence in the rightness of our cause. …
We must not reward evil with retreat from any of the battlefields where the fight is raging, including Iraq and Afghanistan. And we must be willing to support intelligence and enforcement activities, including incarcerating those who have plotted against or attacked us.
More here.
War
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Two Traitors
All comments in blue are by the CityTroll
This is not our fight
Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for (you voted for war and you have NO Constitutional Authority to DICTATE how it's conducted)
By ROBERT KKK BYRD & HILLARY Rightwing Conspiracy CLINTON
Tuesday, July 10th 2007, 4:00 AM
On Oct. 11, 2002, the Senate gave President Bush authority to use force against Iraq. Nearly five years later, it is time for Congress to say enough is enough. (simple vote to end the funding)
The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq. They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. (out of 21 provinces only 3 are violent, hardly a civil war) According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home. (the surge has only been at strength for two weeks, and the violence has increased due to the enemy being engaged more)
That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle. (that proposal is UN-Constitutional Congress has ONE OPTION CUT FUNDING PERIOD)
At a recent Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response was surprisingly candid: "I don't know." Four years into the conflict in Iraq, longer than American involvement in World War II, after years of White House misjudgment and miscalculation, as our troops fight and die in the midst of an Iraqi civil war, the answer could not be clearer. (that what your proposing is unconstitutional and your defaming our troops. Never have there been so few casualties. 4 years and we have lost less men then we did in the first half of D-Day)
The 2008 defense authorization bill is now before the U.S. Senate. This legislation presents a vital opportunity for Congress to step up and force the President to change course in Iraq. Amending the bill to deauthorize the war would do exactly that. We intend to lead that effort.
If the Bush administration believes that the current war, as it is being executed, is critical to America's future, then it should make the case and let the people decide. Explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions. Explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight. (because we are fighting a war on Terrorists who have said over and over that Iraq is the Main Front in this war. They have also said when they drive us out they will continue this war in our home country)
Prior to the vote on the original authorization of force in 2002, we worked to limit that authority to one year. Unfortunately, the amendment failed — a fact rendered all the more distressing in hindsight. (once again un-constitutional)
By deauthorizing the original use-of-force resolution this year, we would put a stop to the President's failed strategy and require him to articulate a new policy that takes into account the desires of the American people, the reality in Iraq and the recommendations of military experts.
The American people deserve to know how the President intends to judge the results of our ongoing efforts in Iraq and what strategy he proposes to bring the occupation to an end. (he is judging the results and unlike the democrats he is not using how many seats in congress he can gain by surrendering as his yard stick)
Our men and women in uniform toppled the dictator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has established a parliament and elected a president and a prime minister. Yet our troops remain in Iraq and our President remains unmoved by any arguments to change course. (once again because it is the main front in the war on terror. The enemy knows that it's a shame a democrat can't comprehend such a simple truth)
As Bush admitted in his State of the Union address in January, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq." We could not agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized, Mr. President. If you want to continue to wage this fight, come to Congress and make your case. Otherwise, bring our troops home.
Byrd, senior senator from West Virginia, is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Clinton, junior senator from New York, is the first New Yorker to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
These two are idiots, idiots that have been chosen by other idiots to represent them.
Congress has ONE CHOICE if they want to end the war. Cut the funding, anything else is un-constitutional. Isn't it odd that the one avenue that they have they refuse to use. Could it be that they know that if they cut the funding in the middle of a war it would be suicidal to them as a party?
Iraq is the MAIN FRONT in The War on Terror. Our enemies know it and the bulk of the American people know it. Iraq is also the most successful war in history. We have fought for 4 years and have lost very few people. Any loss is tragic and the Men and Women of our armed services are our best. Every one we have lost is a tragedy, but it is war. A war we did not start and a war we can NOT end by retreating.
What the Democrat Party is engaged in is Treason.
Byrd
Clinton
This is not our fight
Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for (you voted for war and you have NO Constitutional Authority to DICTATE how it's conducted)
By ROBERT KKK BYRD & HILLARY Rightwing Conspiracy CLINTON
Tuesday, July 10th 2007, 4:00 AM
On Oct. 11, 2002, the Senate gave President Bush authority to use force against Iraq. Nearly five years later, it is time for Congress to say enough is enough. (simple vote to end the funding)
The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq. They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. (out of 21 provinces only 3 are violent, hardly a civil war) According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home. (the surge has only been at strength for two weeks, and the violence has increased due to the enemy being engaged more)
That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle. (that proposal is UN-Constitutional Congress has ONE OPTION CUT FUNDING PERIOD)
At a recent Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response was surprisingly candid: "I don't know." Four years into the conflict in Iraq, longer than American involvement in World War II, after years of White House misjudgment and miscalculation, as our troops fight and die in the midst of an Iraqi civil war, the answer could not be clearer. (that what your proposing is unconstitutional and your defaming our troops. Never have there been so few casualties. 4 years and we have lost less men then we did in the first half of D-Day)
The 2008 defense authorization bill is now before the U.S. Senate. This legislation presents a vital opportunity for Congress to step up and force the President to change course in Iraq. Amending the bill to deauthorize the war would do exactly that. We intend to lead that effort.
If the Bush administration believes that the current war, as it is being executed, is critical to America's future, then it should make the case and let the people decide. Explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions. Explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight. (because we are fighting a war on Terrorists who have said over and over that Iraq is the Main Front in this war. They have also said when they drive us out they will continue this war in our home country)
Prior to the vote on the original authorization of force in 2002, we worked to limit that authority to one year. Unfortunately, the amendment failed — a fact rendered all the more distressing in hindsight. (once again un-constitutional)
By deauthorizing the original use-of-force resolution this year, we would put a stop to the President's failed strategy and require him to articulate a new policy that takes into account the desires of the American people, the reality in Iraq and the recommendations of military experts.
The American people deserve to know how the President intends to judge the results of our ongoing efforts in Iraq and what strategy he proposes to bring the occupation to an end. (he is judging the results and unlike the democrats he is not using how many seats in congress he can gain by surrendering as his yard stick)
Our men and women in uniform toppled the dictator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has established a parliament and elected a president and a prime minister. Yet our troops remain in Iraq and our President remains unmoved by any arguments to change course. (once again because it is the main front in the war on terror. The enemy knows that it's a shame a democrat can't comprehend such a simple truth)
As Bush admitted in his State of the Union address in January, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq." We could not agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized, Mr. President. If you want to continue to wage this fight, come to Congress and make your case. Otherwise, bring our troops home.
Byrd, senior senator from West Virginia, is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Clinton, junior senator from New York, is the first New Yorker to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
These two are idiots, idiots that have been chosen by other idiots to represent them.
Congress has ONE CHOICE if they want to end the war. Cut the funding, anything else is un-constitutional. Isn't it odd that the one avenue that they have they refuse to use. Could it be that they know that if they cut the funding in the middle of a war it would be suicidal to them as a party?
Iraq is the MAIN FRONT in The War on Terror. Our enemies know it and the bulk of the American people know it. Iraq is also the most successful war in history. We have fought for 4 years and have lost very few people. Any loss is tragic and the Men and Women of our armed services are our best. Every one we have lost is a tragedy, but it is war. A war we did not start and a war we can NOT end by retreating.
What the Democrat Party is engaged in is Treason.
Byrd
Clinton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)