Saturday, January 13, 2007
Update On Iranian Embassy Raid
Well it appears that the Iranian's in the embassy might be linked to the insurgency in Iraq. It's not unthinkable for Iran to want to make us look bad on the world stage and kill as many of our guys as possible without "officially" getting involved. I'm just happy that our guys aren't going to sit around and just take bullshit like this. Even if it means conducting a raid and arresting people in an embassy.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Palestinian Prime Minister Asks For Halt Of Violence
against each other. But not against Israel. This is the ongoing problem with the Palestinians. As soon as they try to reach a true peace agreement, they will more then likely have their own state. Which is the main argument that they've said for years. But until they decide that, they won't be seeing statehood anytime soon.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Bush Responds To Critics Of New Iraq Plan
If you don't like mine, tell me yours. Brilliant if you ask me. He's letting critics know that tough decisions are being made all the time and he's making sure that Monday morning quarterbacks are being shown as they truly are. So, Democrats, what is your plan? You certainly haven't come up with anything viable so far. We're all ears. In fact, Democrats want to have every troop out of Iraq within 4-6 months. So, how is that going to help the Iraqi government quell the violence? How is that going to help build up the Iraqi nation?
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Venezuela Decides To Nationalize Energy Sectors
Good job Chavez. If you're trying to drive out foreign investors, this is a sure way to do it. People are already shaky as it is when it comes to Russia's recent decision to do the same. Foreign investment is a very important part of any country's economy, and when you nationalize it, you cut off additional ways of making money.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Democratic Plan On Lower Interest Student Loans
Sure, it sounds good on paper, and every college student should be excited. But then the details come in. "The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized student loans -- a distinction not made in the campaign literature Democrats handed out before winning control of Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with their kids' college costs."
So in other words, because my wife and I make a good living, we won't see the cuts in her college loans (she's finishing up her masters degree). But, it doesn't make the distinction of poor students. I would rather see a distinction of "If you get a GPA of say 3.0 or above, you get X amount of a percentage cut in your loans". Tie the cuts to actual student performance. This will help out those who want to help themselves, rather then those who just want to coast through college.
I'm all for helping those who want to help themselves, but I certainly don't want to see cuts for someone who got high and drunk all year long and then decides that he/she can "get by" with a 2.0 GPA. Give them a financial incentive to study hard and do well in college.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
So in other words, because my wife and I make a good living, we won't see the cuts in her college loans (she's finishing up her masters degree). But, it doesn't make the distinction of poor students. I would rather see a distinction of "If you get a GPA of say 3.0 or above, you get X amount of a percentage cut in your loans". Tie the cuts to actual student performance. This will help out those who want to help themselves, rather then those who just want to coast through college.
I'm all for helping those who want to help themselves, but I certainly don't want to see cuts for someone who got high and drunk all year long and then decides that he/she can "get by" with a 2.0 GPA. Give them a financial incentive to study hard and do well in college.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
OPEC President - $53 A Barrel "Unacceptable"
Sooner or later OPEC's going to realize that customers aren't willing to continue to get ripped off and are going to look for alternatives if they try to squeeze too hard. Plus, with Iran and Venezuela's economy's needing as much money as possible, Iran and Venezuela aren't going to be too keen on cutting production. Analysts say that they expect oil to slide even further and this slight bounce in price is just a mere "resting point". Hopefully they are right. :)
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Friday, January 12, 2007
China Wants Us To Back Off Of It's Dealings With Iran
Well since we've imposed preliminary sanctions against Iran, which China agreed to, it's kind of hypocritical of China to continue oil and gas business dealings with Iran. Plus, I could give a shit what China thinks about this because they want us to back away from that, but they won't back away from major spy operations against us. So if you think we're going to allow Iran to flourish all the while trying to obtain nuclear weapons, you must be out of your mind.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
House OK's Drug Bill
While negotiations for better prices is a good thing, what do you want to bet that the prices will just be shifted around?
"But Republicans counter that there wouldn't be any savings. Also, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation was unlikely to result in savings to taxpayers".
So it's ok to ignore this committee's recommendation, but it's ok to trumpet the Iraq one? I think it would be better to look at long term costs here as well. Are we just asking for less out of pocket for seniors? Are we going to be increasing taxes on non-seniors to help pay for this? It's quite a slippery slope once these things start to get rolling.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
"But Republicans counter that there wouldn't be any savings. Also, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation was unlikely to result in savings to taxpayers".
So it's ok to ignore this committee's recommendation, but it's ok to trumpet the Iraq one? I think it would be better to look at long term costs here as well. Are we just asking for less out of pocket for seniors? Are we going to be increasing taxes on non-seniors to help pay for this? It's quite a slippery slope once these things start to get rolling.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Duke Professor Quits In Protest
So, let me get this straight. A Duke professor, supposedly an educated woman, has quit because Duke officials have allowed the 2 lacrosse players back into school? The school has recognized that the accusations are not true, the players are unfairly having their name run through the mud and seeks to remedy the situation. So that's the general beef this woman has. I guess in her academic career, she never bothered to look up "innocent until proven guilty".
How is she going to get a new job? Is the new employer going to see "She quit because she didn't like the school letting back in two students falsely accused of rape"? If so, that sounds like a nutjob to be and there'd be no way I'd hire her if I was the one making the decisions. It means that she's not reliable as a staff member. Regardless of if you agree with her statements or not, Duke is a business and businesses must be able to count on their employees to continue to function.
From the article: Holloway was one of 88 faculty members at Duke who endorsed an ad last April in the campus newspaper that included anonymous quotes from students discussing racism and sexual assault on Duke's campus. She is worried discussion of race and gender equality will end once the lacrosse case is settled.
So she's worried about race and gender discussions will end? Sorry sweety, that's a piss poor argument. You can always bring up those discussions in the classroom, but since you're no longer employed by Duke University, you don't have a classroom to discuss in.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
How is she going to get a new job? Is the new employer going to see "She quit because she didn't like the school letting back in two students falsely accused of rape"? If so, that sounds like a nutjob to be and there'd be no way I'd hire her if I was the one making the decisions. It means that she's not reliable as a staff member. Regardless of if you agree with her statements or not, Duke is a business and businesses must be able to count on their employees to continue to function.
From the article: Holloway was one of 88 faculty members at Duke who endorsed an ad last April in the campus newspaper that included anonymous quotes from students discussing racism and sexual assault on Duke's campus. She is worried discussion of race and gender equality will end once the lacrosse case is settled.
So she's worried about race and gender discussions will end? Sorry sweety, that's a piss poor argument. You can always bring up those discussions in the classroom, but since you're no longer employed by Duke University, you don't have a classroom to discuss in.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
US Soldier Gets 18 Years For Murder
It's sad to see a solider dishonor himself and his fellow soldier by committing a crime of this nature. But he will pay for it for the next 18 years. While I can fully appreciate the way things can spin out of control on the battlefield, the military does have strict rules of engagement and if those are broken, they then become criminal offenses. Sure, if I came under fire and I thought someone knew something that would save me and my fellow soldiers, I have no idea how I'd react.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Oil Slides And Reasons For It
Quite a long and interesting article on why oil continues to drop. Much of it is to do with natural supply and demand, but there's also a bit of political backstabbing going on as well. From the article:
The latest plunge in crude oil, perhaps inspired by Saudi Arabia, is likely to put a squeeze on Iran’s budget surplus, which could turn into a deficit if oil prices fall towards $45 per barrel. To finance the government’s subsidies, Iran’s central bank increased the broad money supply by 36% in 2006, sending inflation soaring to 14.6% in September. Tehran cannot afford to cutback on oil production and reduce its oil income, without cutting back on subsidies and risk riots in the streets.
So Saudi Arabia looks to be on our side a bit on the Iran issue. I'm cautiously optimistic about that. I'd love for oil to be around $40-$45 a barrel. That should make gas around $1.80-$2.25 a gallon. Regardless of what happens with price, I'll still be looking at hybrids and other types high mileage cars simply because I don't want to be at the mercy of a foreign governments will to squeeze a few bucks from me.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
The latest plunge in crude oil, perhaps inspired by Saudi Arabia, is likely to put a squeeze on Iran’s budget surplus, which could turn into a deficit if oil prices fall towards $45 per barrel. To finance the government’s subsidies, Iran’s central bank increased the broad money supply by 36% in 2006, sending inflation soaring to 14.6% in September. Tehran cannot afford to cutback on oil production and reduce its oil income, without cutting back on subsidies and risk riots in the streets.
So Saudi Arabia looks to be on our side a bit on the Iran issue. I'm cautiously optimistic about that. I'd love for oil to be around $40-$45 a barrel. That should make gas around $1.80-$2.25 a gallon. Regardless of what happens with price, I'll still be looking at hybrids and other types high mileage cars simply because I don't want to be at the mercy of a foreign governments will to squeeze a few bucks from me.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
We Need A Big Push
Into Moqtada al-Sadr's area and wipe him and his militia out. Especially if he's making these threats. He was personally wanted for the murder of a fellow cleric. But we offered him a truce way back when if he would lay down his arms, he could join the political arena. Well obviously he doesn't want to go that route and I think we should hunt him down like the dog he is and remove him and his roving band of thugs from the gene pool.
"We do not welcome this strategy and moreover we do not welcome the US soldiers". Well no shit Moqtada, you don't want American troops, who can readily kick your ass in your area? You'd rather threaten poor, defenseless Iraqis rather then take on someone who you know won't hesitate to put a bullet in your head? He's a bully and a threat to peace in Iraq and must be killed or captured.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
"We do not welcome this strategy and moreover we do not welcome the US soldiers". Well no shit Moqtada, you don't want American troops, who can readily kick your ass in your area? You'd rather threaten poor, defenseless Iraqis rather then take on someone who you know won't hesitate to put a bullet in your head? He's a bully and a threat to peace in Iraq and must be killed or captured.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Cat Fight!
My money's on Condoleezza Rice. So California Senator Barbara Boxer made a nasty comment about Rice's lack of children for Iraq. Here's a little snippet.
I'm very surprised though that the article mentions the fact that if this had come from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, there would have been hell to pay. Glad to see that some people in the media are willing to point out a little bit of hypocracy. :) This was a low, personal shot at Ms. Rice and I think she would be correct in asking for an apology. Democrats have asked for apologies for a whole lot less.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."
Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
I'm very surprised though that the article mentions the fact that if this had come from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, there would have been hell to pay. Glad to see that some people in the media are willing to point out a little bit of hypocracy. :) This was a low, personal shot at Ms. Rice and I think she would be correct in asking for an apology. Democrats have asked for apologies for a whole lot less.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Democrats Already Butting Heads
Congressman Rangel is already butting heads with Nancy Pelosi over her wanting to repeal tax cuts for people making over $500,000 a year. Also, Sources say Rangel went to Pelosi urging that his committee be allowed to review legislation allowing the feds to negotiate with drug companies over prices and taking away tax breaks for big oil companies - but she refused.
Looks like they just wanted to be in the majority and have power, rather then actually doing something that's right for America.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Looks like they just wanted to be in the majority and have power, rather then actually doing something that's right for America.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
It's Called Entertainment People
So some whacked out Christian group is pissed because Conan O'Brien had a sketch about loving Jesus, "but not in that way". This is the problem with all religious fanatics, whether they are Christian, Muslim, or any other. They try to push their will onto others and make them bend to that they think is right. I hate to break it to you guys, but there's a few rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution that allows Conan O'Brien to put onto TV whatever he wants.
If you find that offensive, turn off the TV. You're adults, so start acting like one. Just because one group of people want to make fun of any religious thing they want, doesn't give you the right to demand apologies, concessions, or anything else. This is exactly what the Dutch cartoonists went through with the illustrations about Mohamed, only without the riots, violence, threats, etc.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
If you find that offensive, turn off the TV. You're adults, so start acting like one. Just because one group of people want to make fun of any religious thing they want, doesn't give you the right to demand apologies, concessions, or anything else. This is exactly what the Dutch cartoonists went through with the illustrations about Mohamed, only without the riots, violence, threats, etc.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
US Embassy Attacked In Greece
It appears it was done by a leftist group. It appears we have a new enemy that the general public doesn't quite know a lot about. The investigation is still in it's early stages, but Greek and US officials are working together to get the bad guys.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Threat Taken Seriously
Well just a day or so after reading an article on how Hezbollah is the #2 threat to us, we learn that the CIA has been given the go ahead to take action to undermine it. I would have preferred to have that remain secret, but I'm glad that we're doing something about it.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
GOP Calls Out Democratic Hypocracy
Oh man, how I love these. Democrats will talk your ear off about how Republicans were corrupt and how they did shady deals with big business. They'll also tell you how they will run things honestly. Well it appears that that's not the case. Democrats want to exempt American Samoa and other outlying territories from the minimum wage law. It just so happens that there's a tuna factory that employs about 75% of the island population. That tuna's headquarters is in San Fransisco, which coincidentally is where Nancy Pelosi's home town is.
What makes this slightly funny is that Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, asks if America Samoa and other territories will be exempt from the stem cell research "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill." Of course that was shot down by Rep. Barney Frank.
Why would Democrats seek to exempt anyone from the minimum wage law? I thought that minimum wage wasn't enough to support a family on? Well obviously there's some people supporting a family on those kind of wages if 75% of the population works there. Don't Democrats want a better life for ALL American's, even those living on the outlying territories? Well if not, why not exempt Montana, or New York, or any other place that they deem unworthy of a raise in pay?
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
What makes this slightly funny is that Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, asks if America Samoa and other territories will be exempt from the stem cell research "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill." Of course that was shot down by Rep. Barney Frank.
Why would Democrats seek to exempt anyone from the minimum wage law? I thought that minimum wage wasn't enough to support a family on? Well obviously there's some people supporting a family on those kind of wages if 75% of the population works there. Don't Democrats want a better life for ALL American's, even those living on the outlying territories? Well if not, why not exempt Montana, or New York, or any other place that they deem unworthy of a raise in pay?
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Thursday, January 11, 2007
James Brown
God Father Of Soul. Hardest Working Man In Show Business. Dead Beat Dad? Apparently James decided to leave out of his will his 5 year old son. I don't care if you don't like your current wife, but be a man and make sure that your son is taken care of now that you're gone.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Damn, We Missed
Well damn it. I guess we missed our targets in Somalia. Here's a nice little snippet: The strike was criticised by the European Commission, as well as the Arab League which claimed it had killed “many innocent victims” and demanded that Washington refrain from further attacks.
First off, we don't target civilians. I don't know how many times we've said that and have gone out of our way to prove that. Yes, when you do an airstrike, sometimes innocent people do die. We make amends for that. But if you are hiding a known Al-Qaeda agent, we won't quit until he/she is captured or dead. We don't care if they are in a nation that likes us or not. You can "demand" all you want, but the bottom line is that I would rather we "make more terrorists" by killing the known ones. It tends to make the new ones think twice before they try anything. It's better to hunt them down and kill or capture them because if we don't, they won't stop until we're dead.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
First off, we don't target civilians. I don't know how many times we've said that and have gone out of our way to prove that. Yes, when you do an airstrike, sometimes innocent people do die. We make amends for that. But if you are hiding a known Al-Qaeda agent, we won't quit until he/she is captured or dead. We don't care if they are in a nation that likes us or not. You can "demand" all you want, but the bottom line is that I would rather we "make more terrorists" by killing the known ones. It tends to make the new ones think twice before they try anything. It's better to hunt them down and kill or capture them because if we don't, they won't stop until we're dead.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Hezbollah A Threat
Well that's not too much of a stretch to think that Hezbollah's a threat to us. They've already attacked us. I want people around the world to remember this: When you support groups that have attacked us in the past, you cannot whine when we don't support you in your plights. Perhaps if you came to the table with a legitimate peace plan, we might be a bit more open to helping you out, but until then, lie in the bed you've made.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Poor Jimmy Carter
Looks like the members the board of his humanitarian organization seems to sharply disagree with his statements and his new book. You'd think that people would be a bit more supportive of a guy who's biased towards a group of people who bomb schools, buses, synagogues, night clubs, etc.
Oh Jimmy, what ever will you do now? I'm sure you can find a way to explain away why you support people who strap bombs onto children and fill their heads with propaganda. Go ahead Jimmy, we're waiting......
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Oh Jimmy, what ever will you do now? I'm sure you can find a way to explain away why you support people who strap bombs onto children and fill their heads with propaganda. Go ahead Jimmy, we're waiting......
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Financial Squeeze On Iran
Some of you may think that our going after Iran is just about military might. But we have other ways of making things happen.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Congress Divided In Iraq
Well thanks Captain Obvious. But what I'd like to know is, what do Democrats want to say to the people who've made sacrifices for our country. Would you like to tell the families of fallen soldiers that the war was illegal and wrong and, therefore, their death meant nothing? What would you like to tell the taxpayer who funded the war, who support the president, and who believe that the war can be won, regardless of what Democrats think?
I am happy that Senator Mitch McConnell has decided to step up things a bit and make a stand against the Democrats. It shows them that just because they are in the majority, it doesn't make them right and it doesn't mean they'll just get whatever they want.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
I am happy that Senator Mitch McConnell has decided to step up things a bit and make a stand against the Democrats. It shows them that just because they are in the majority, it doesn't make them right and it doesn't mean they'll just get whatever they want.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Rice Warns Iran
It's good that we're calling these guys out on their underhanded tactics. It shows that we're not going to sit by and let things happen. We're going to find out who's supporting the insurgency and deal with it. But of course, there's Democrats that can't seem to see that point.
"Isn't one war enough for this president?" asked Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, an Iraq war opponent and contender for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Bush "appears to be setting the stage for a wider war in the region," Kucinich said.
So apparently Congressman Kucinich won't do anything about it if there's evidence that there are extra players on the field. He'd rather just run away from problems rather then confront them head on. It's people like him that further reinforce the notion that Democrats are weak on security, crime, and terrorism.
Travis
If You Won't Take Care Of It, I Will
When the police won't help out, then you can't blame a population for vigilante justice. Sometimes criminals just need an ass whipping. I know if I knew the police wouldn't do anything about crime in my neighborhood, I'd be tempted to do the same thing as these guys.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
NY Firefighters Asked To Remove Pictures Of Loved Ones
I don't know about you, but I'd tell them no. For the job that they do, for them to be asked to remove pictures and flags from their lockers seems like a slap in the face. They risk their lives and the next call out could be their last. What's the harm in allowing them to decorate it how they see fit? Sure, there was a guy who put up sexual explicit stuff, but deal with that guy, don't go spoiling it for everyone else.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
US Arrest Iranian Officials
These guys were believed to be involved with the insurgency and they were arrested. There's conflicting reports on how the raid was conducted, here, and here. But Iran is pissed because they call the action: an "illegal move" and appealing for the immediate release of the detained staff, according to the Iranian news agency.
Well isn't that funny that they call it an "illegal move" when they did the same thing in 1979? The difference between our raid and theirs is that ours was conducted because of a suspected crime. Theirs was conducted simply because they wanted leverage.
Regardless of such hypocrisy from the Iranian government, it is widely known that Iran is supporting the insurgency. And if that's the case and our guys find out where it's coming from, you can bet your ass we're going in to arrest those responsible, even if they are hiding under the guise of an embassy.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Well isn't that funny that they call it an "illegal move" when they did the same thing in 1979? The difference between our raid and theirs is that ours was conducted because of a suspected crime. Theirs was conducted simply because they wanted leverage.
Regardless of such hypocrisy from the Iranian government, it is widely known that Iran is supporting the insurgency. And if that's the case and our guys find out where it's coming from, you can bet your ass we're going in to arrest those responsible, even if they are hiding under the guise of an embassy.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Lily Munster Dead
Off topic, I know. Oh man, I used to LOVE this show when I was a kid on reruns. I'm actually kind of surprised that she was even still alive. Actually, she was a real hot chick back in the day. Anyways, rest in peace my dear.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
I'm Not The Only One
I guess I'm not the only one who noticed the new Democratic Congress isn't holding up their campaign promises about the "5 day work week"
TAKING DAY OFF FOR FOOTBALL COSTS DEMS CREDIBILITY
By DICK MORRIS
January 10, 2006 -- House Democrats lost considerable credibility yesterday when their opening session was cancelled so that members could attend the Ohio State-Florida State football game.
This is not a joke.
It is, however, a blunt metaphor for how genuinely out of touch the members of Congress really are. How many other Americans do you suppose were given the same perk? A day off because of an evening football game? And how many school kids would like to have time off to watch their own favorite teams? What kind of message is the House leadership sending?
Is it that they don’t get how bad it looks, or that they don’t care?
Their record has been dismal. Last year, the House and Senate worked an average of about two days a week for their salary of $162,500. Nice work if you can find it. Responding to well-deserved criticisms, the new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), with great fanfare, promised a five-day work week. But that was just talk. When it was the Republicans who were scheduling the eight-day month, Hoyer was outraged. But now that the Democrats control the calendar, he considers a football game to be a legitimate excuse for a vacation day. As he said in reference to the new House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), “There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live in Ohio and Florida. In the spirit of comity, and I know if Maryland were playing, I would want to be accommodated, and I want to accommodate my friend, Mr. Boehner.”
Apparently Mr. Hoyer is not familiar with the disdain that American voters feel for members of Congress. A mid-December Gallup poll showed that 74 percent of Americans disapproved of the job that Congress was doing. Hoyer is certainly doing his best to keep those negative poll numbers.
And there won’t be a five-day work week at all in January. The Martin Luther King holiday falls next week and the Democrats and Republicans are holding respective retreats during the following two weeks. The Democrats are planning a day of speeches in two weeks, including one by Bill Clinton. Hey folks, ever think about doing this on a weekend?
So the promised “five-day” work week starts on Tuesday at 6:30 and ends at about 2 on Friday — more like a two-and-a-half-day work week.
And that might not even happen if there’s another important football game.
Meanwhile in the Senate, while Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) fight for an independent watchdog to enforce lobbying laws, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insists that hearings must first be held on the issue. This is hardly a new idea. It’s been proposed for years and makes sense. We’ve seen how little policing of lobbyists has been done — witness Jack Abramoff and his cohorts. Requiring hearings is just another stalling tactic. And, in any event, Reid is the last person who should be in charge of designing the self-policing of lobbyists. For years, his three sons and son-in-law made millions by lobbying for Nevada interests — often working out of his Senate office. Only when the press called attention to the practice did Reid bar the boys. Talk about the goats guarding the garbage! Sen. Obama spoke of “institutional resistance” to the watchdog provisions. That institutional resistance has led to serious lobbying transgressions that must be stopped.
If the Democrats want to stay in power, and if Congress wants to win the support and trust of the American people, they’d better start thinking about how their actions resonate with the average voter. Looks like it’s already time for new Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to use her “mother-of-five voice” and turn things around in the House. As for the Senate, let’s hope the new members speak out and force real and necessary reforms. This time the country is watching
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
TAKING DAY OFF FOR FOOTBALL COSTS DEMS CREDIBILITY
By DICK MORRIS
January 10, 2006 -- House Democrats lost considerable credibility yesterday when their opening session was cancelled so that members could attend the Ohio State-Florida State football game.
This is not a joke.
It is, however, a blunt metaphor for how genuinely out of touch the members of Congress really are. How many other Americans do you suppose were given the same perk? A day off because of an evening football game? And how many school kids would like to have time off to watch their own favorite teams? What kind of message is the House leadership sending?
Is it that they don’t get how bad it looks, or that they don’t care?
Their record has been dismal. Last year, the House and Senate worked an average of about two days a week for their salary of $162,500. Nice work if you can find it. Responding to well-deserved criticisms, the new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), with great fanfare, promised a five-day work week. But that was just talk. When it was the Republicans who were scheduling the eight-day month, Hoyer was outraged. But now that the Democrats control the calendar, he considers a football game to be a legitimate excuse for a vacation day. As he said in reference to the new House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), “There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live in Ohio and Florida. In the spirit of comity, and I know if Maryland were playing, I would want to be accommodated, and I want to accommodate my friend, Mr. Boehner.”
Apparently Mr. Hoyer is not familiar with the disdain that American voters feel for members of Congress. A mid-December Gallup poll showed that 74 percent of Americans disapproved of the job that Congress was doing. Hoyer is certainly doing his best to keep those negative poll numbers.
And there won’t be a five-day work week at all in January. The Martin Luther King holiday falls next week and the Democrats and Republicans are holding respective retreats during the following two weeks. The Democrats are planning a day of speeches in two weeks, including one by Bill Clinton. Hey folks, ever think about doing this on a weekend?
So the promised “five-day” work week starts on Tuesday at 6:30 and ends at about 2 on Friday — more like a two-and-a-half-day work week.
And that might not even happen if there’s another important football game.
Meanwhile in the Senate, while Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) fight for an independent watchdog to enforce lobbying laws, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insists that hearings must first be held on the issue. This is hardly a new idea. It’s been proposed for years and makes sense. We’ve seen how little policing of lobbyists has been done — witness Jack Abramoff and his cohorts. Requiring hearings is just another stalling tactic. And, in any event, Reid is the last person who should be in charge of designing the self-policing of lobbyists. For years, his three sons and son-in-law made millions by lobbying for Nevada interests — often working out of his Senate office. Only when the press called attention to the practice did Reid bar the boys. Talk about the goats guarding the garbage! Sen. Obama spoke of “institutional resistance” to the watchdog provisions. That institutional resistance has led to serious lobbying transgressions that must be stopped.
If the Democrats want to stay in power, and if Congress wants to win the support and trust of the American people, they’d better start thinking about how their actions resonate with the average voter. Looks like it’s already time for new Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to use her “mother-of-five voice” and turn things around in the House. As for the Senate, let’s hope the new members speak out and force real and necessary reforms. This time the country is watching
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Bush's Speech
I got this from Drudge Report. Here's the full text of George W. Bush's speech tonight.
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Bush's New Iraq Plan
So it's going to take an additional 20,000 troops, and a new way of thinking. Bush has admitted mistakes, which is what Democrats have been screaming about for a while now, and "And there are too many restrictions on the troops that are in place, Bush said. "Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does," he said.
But still, Democrats love to push off an idea that is against the President. I'm sure if Bush came up with an iron clad plan that was guaranteed to work, Democrats would find something they'd love to disagree with. Such as this nice quote from Hillary Clinton: "We did not enough troops to dominate the country after we secured the military victory." Oh well, ying and yang I guess.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
But still, Democrats love to push off an idea that is against the President. I'm sure if Bush came up with an iron clad plan that was guaranteed to work, Democrats would find something they'd love to disagree with. Such as this nice quote from Hillary Clinton: "We did not enough troops to dominate the country after we secured the military victory." Oh well, ying and yang I guess.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
House Votes To Increase Minimum Wage
Well that's all fine and dandy, and I've made my point about the subject before. But my biggest gripe with this article is this quote: "You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Umm, If you do work and and play by the rules, guess what happens? You get promoted and get raises. That's the way all American business are run. Don't work for an employer that does that? Switch jobs. You're learning valuable job skills that can be brought over to another company. Everyone has had a minimum wage job that they absolutely hated when they were growing up, myself included. But that's just the way it is. Minimum wage jobs are meant for menial jobs. If you're raising a family, which is what Democrats love to throw out as the worst case scenario, you certainly shouldn't be working a minimum wage job unless you're a young adult just starting out in life. There should be something inside of you as a responsible adult to want to better yourselves.
This is America. Land of opportunity. If you can't get it together here, where the hell do you expect to go to make a life for yourself and your family?
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Umm, If you do work and and play by the rules, guess what happens? You get promoted and get raises. That's the way all American business are run. Don't work for an employer that does that? Switch jobs. You're learning valuable job skills that can be brought over to another company. Everyone has had a minimum wage job that they absolutely hated when they were growing up, myself included. But that's just the way it is. Minimum wage jobs are meant for menial jobs. If you're raising a family, which is what Democrats love to throw out as the worst case scenario, you certainly shouldn't be working a minimum wage job unless you're a young adult just starting out in life. There should be something inside of you as a responsible adult to want to better yourselves.
This is America. Land of opportunity. If you can't get it together here, where the hell do you expect to go to make a life for yourself and your family?
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Bush And Big Oil
Hey, I thought that George W. Bush was in bed with big oil companies. Well if that's true, why did he just raise royalty payments from oil companies? I'm so confused. :)
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Al-Qaeda In Somalia 1/2 Confirmed Dead
A Somalian official confirmed, but not confirmed by the United States that one of the men responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings.
Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed said U.S. special forces are needed on the ground as government forces backed by Ethiopia are unable to capture the last remaining hideouts of suspected extremists.
I'm glad this guy knows that sometimes it takes our forces unique abilities to root out terrorists, but I simply don't care if the extremists are captured or killed. Captured would be nice for the intelligence that they can give us, but I don't care if they end up on the wrong end of a gun or airstrike.
It's also very nice to see that we have support from people in the region who appreciate our help when offered. See guys, a simple thank you in the public eye is all it takes.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed said U.S. special forces are needed on the ground as government forces backed by Ethiopia are unable to capture the last remaining hideouts of suspected extremists.
I'm glad this guy knows that sometimes it takes our forces unique abilities to root out terrorists, but I simply don't care if the extremists are captured or killed. Captured would be nice for the intelligence that they can give us, but I don't care if they end up on the wrong end of a gun or airstrike.
It's also very nice to see that we have support from people in the region who appreciate our help when offered. See guys, a simple thank you in the public eye is all it takes.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Democrats Plan On Symbolic Vote On Iraq
So it's non binding and changes nothing, but the Democrats decide to use some of their "First 100 hours" to waste time on this? Sure, if it's binding or actually does something, then fine. But I thought they were in a rush to get stuff done during the first 100 hours?
So Democrats are still thinking about blocking funding for our troops. It's not like they are coming out and saying "There's no way in hell we'll block funding". They are saying "we should be careful about it". If that doesn't speak volumes about them, I'd like to see a better example.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bush’s approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue.
“We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we don’t want to leave our troops short-changed,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.
So Democrats are still thinking about blocking funding for our troops. It's not like they are coming out and saying "There's no way in hell we'll block funding". They are saying "we should be careful about it". If that doesn't speak volumes about them, I'd like to see a better example.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
US Sending Stealth Planes To South Korea
I guess it's best to have our invisible boys in the air to keep on eye on the whack job Kim for intelligence gathering purposes. What I find funny is that just a few years ago, South Korea was asking our troops stationed there to leave. Now all of a sudden when there's danger, they seem to warm up to us.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Warning: Blatant Plug
I'm just excited that one of my favorite shows is coming back for another season. Future Weapons is a neat show about all the upcoming military grade weapons that are just on the horizon. They take a look at weapons from around the world, so it's not just an American puff up show. The host is a bit on the cheesy side for me, but great viewing if that's your kind of thing.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Spy Devices Found In Canadian Coins
The spy business just keeps getting more amazing by the day. Now, there have been tracking devices found in Canadian coins. It's all tit for tat in the spy world, so I imagine that we've got neat stuff like this too.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Russia Shooting It's Foot Again
So they decide to cut off oil supplies again. This time it's because Balarus decided to tax Russian oil flowing through it's country onto the EU in retaliation for Russia asking for more then double the current rate for oil. Seems fair on Balarus' side if you ask me. Perhaps Russia doesn't quite understand that if you're not a reliable supplier of a product, you soon will find yourself without customers.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Kennedy Vows To Fight Troop Increases
I'll give Ted Kennedy credit for this: He voted against the war in Iraq and he's still against it today. That shows backbone that's pretty rare inside the Democratic party. But that's as much credit as I'm willing to give him. For example: "The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence," Kennedy said, referring to the November midterm elections in which Democrats wrested control of Congress from Republicans.
No Ted, the American people voted out Republicans because they strayed too far away from their core beliefs and thought the Democrats could do a better job of running the war in Iraq, not because they wanted to get out of Iraq.
Another Example:
"The way to start is by acting on the president's new plan," Kennedy said. "An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake."
Just like a retreat, by any other name, is still a retreat. But the bottom line is that Democrats aren't going to cut funds from troops as it would be political suicide to do so. They just got into power, they aren't going to do anything that would jeopardize it.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No Ted, the American people voted out Republicans because they strayed too far away from their core beliefs and thought the Democrats could do a better job of running the war in Iraq, not because they wanted to get out of Iraq.
Another Example:
"The way to start is by acting on the president's new plan," Kennedy said. "An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake."
Just like a retreat, by any other name, is still a retreat. But the bottom line is that Democrats aren't going to cut funds from troops as it would be political suicide to do so. They just got into power, they aren't going to do anything that would jeopardize it.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Kennedy Vows To Fight Troop Increases
I'll give Ted Kennedy credit for this: He voted against the war in Iraq and he's still against it today. That shows backbone that's pretty rare inside the Democratic party. But that's as much credit as I'm willing to give him. For example: "The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence," Kennedy said, referring to the November midterm elections in which Democrats wrested control of Congress from Republicans.
No Ted, the American people voted out Republicans because they strayed too far away from their core beliefs and thought the Democrats could do a better job of running the war in Iraq, not because they wanted to get out of Iraq.
Another Example:
"The way to start is by acting on the president's new plan," Kennedy said. "An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake."
Just like a retreat, by any other name, is still a retreat. But the bottom line is that Democrats aren't going to cut funds from troops as it would be political suicide to do so. They just got into power, they aren't going to do anything that would jeopardize it.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No Ted, the American people voted out Republicans because they strayed too far away from their core beliefs and thought the Democrats could do a better job of running the war in Iraq, not because they wanted to get out of Iraq.
Another Example:
"The way to start is by acting on the president's new plan," Kennedy said. "An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake."
Just like a retreat, by any other name, is still a retreat. But the bottom line is that Democrats aren't going to cut funds from troops as it would be political suicide to do so. They just got into power, they aren't going to do anything that would jeopardize it.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
The 100 Hour Congress Begins Now
Keep an eye on these upcoming bills. The most important one is the 9/11 recommendations bill. Although I do support screening of all cargo coming in and out of the country, I do agree with Senator King with his statement: "To make it part of a 100-hour show shamefully trivializes an issue of life or death". I just want to make sure that the bill has been gone over thoroughly and every loophole has been closed off or thought of. Otherwise it's just political grandstanding for the public.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
John Kerry Wants To Lose Again
John Kerry just doesn't know when to call it quits. That's normally a good thing, but when you have so many elect ability problems, it may be time to think about just being a Senator. John, buddy, you can't win because you're the wrong man for the job. Just accept that and let another Democrat have a shot at it. It's called sharing and you should have learned that in Kindergarten.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Oil Still Dropping
Now it's down to $54 a barrel. I think I'd be happy around the $40-$45 range. That would put gas at around an even $2 a gallon. I seriously doubt that oil companies will ever return to $2 a gallon gas as everyone is now getting used to $2.50 or more a gallon. But it's all about supply and demand. Sooner or later people will get tired of spending $30-$75 for a tank of gas and think more about how they can save that money in the long run.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Al Sharpton Considers Running For President
Seriously, does this guy have any clout outside of New York? We all know he loves to play the race card just like his buddy Jesse Jackson, but this guy has 0% chance of winning the presidency. No one likes someone who blames everything on race all the time.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Iranian Bank Sanctioned
Well you can't say that we're not giving diplomacy a try. According to the UN resolution passed a short while ago, this was one of the sanctions that was mentioned as punishment for Iran's refusal to stop enrichment of uranium. Let's see who blinks first.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Ethics In The New Congress
So the Justice Department is getting a little resistance in it's investigation of corruption within Congressional members. What's interesting is this little quote from the article: "Aides to both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Friday that the House’s legal response was still unclear".
How is it unclear? I thought that the Democrats were going to get rid of the corruption in Congress? Republican's have had their fair share of corrupt politicians, and they rightfully need to be removed from power and sent to jail. Oh that's right, it's because the Democrats have one of their own in a bribery scandal at the moment. Now it all makes sense. :)
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
How is it unclear? I thought that the Democrats were going to get rid of the corruption in Congress? Republican's have had their fair share of corrupt politicians, and they rightfully need to be removed from power and sent to jail. Oh that's right, it's because the Democrats have one of their own in a bribery scandal at the moment. Now it all makes sense. :)
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Monday, January 08, 2007
Body Of Saddam Violated?
Here's an interesting video. It has not been verified independently, so take it with a grain of salt. But it does look like Saddam's throat was slit after death. It's rather difficult to tell because it's grainy, rather low light, and it's a very quick glance. It's very unlikely, but does anyone out there know if this could have been caused by the rope pulling on Saddam's neck as he fell? I think the chances of that are about 0%, but I'd be curious if that's possible.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Good Job Boys.
Give em hell. Let them know what it means to have a target on their backs. American gunships fired upon and hopefully got a senior Al-Qaeda bad guy. This guy was wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in Africa. You know the one's that Clinton decided to throw all of two missiles in retaliation for? 200 people dead, thousands injured. Hopefully the last thing this guy saw was a nice American made missile heading in his direction.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com