Wednesday, September 12, 2007
No Democratic censure for MoveOn ad - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
Well it appears that Democrats LIKED the ad that was taken out against General Petraeus. The infamous "General Betray Us" ad. They aren't speaking out against it, only giving token statements. Let's take a peek:
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.
Even Presidential candidate John Edwards won't denounce the obviously below the belt tactic done by his political masters:
A spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate who has benefited from full-page ads MoveOn.org ran on his behalf, said Mr. Edwards "honors General Petraeus' service and patriotism," but he did not disavow the MoveOn.org ad.
"The general is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.
In July, MoveOn.org ran newspaper ads for Mr. Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire after their members chose him as the winner of an online forum about global warming.
Is Barack Obama any different? Nope.
Sen. Barack Obama's spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted that the candidate is not questioning the general's patriotism but rather his "logic," because the Illinois Democrat sees "no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."
After Mr. Obama won an online MoveOn.org forum about Iraq, the group set up a page directing its members to make direct financial contributions to whichever candidate they felt gave the strongest performance.
Of course, even Hillary won't denounce it.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said his boss would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."
So she can't be bothered to make a two sentence statement?
But do you know who actually denounced the ad on the Democratic side of things? John Kerry. Stop laughing, I'm not kidding:
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who on Monday called the ad "over the top."
But they are all saying that it's being used as a distraction. This coming from the party of distractions. Republicans aren't asking for this to be the main topic, they are asking for a bit of humanity from Democrats and they aren't getting it.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics, Republicans
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Dems already discount war report - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
They're discounting it because they know it's going to contain things that they don't want to hear: That progress is being made in Iraq and that enough progress has been made to warrant more time.
What's worse is that they haven't even SEEN the fucking thing and they are already discounting it. Why? Because they're trying to do a preemptive strike against the President and undermine the war in Iraq.
"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.
"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "
The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."
They are calling it the Bush report because they are trying to get American's who don't have a clue about how this report is going to be made, tricked into thinking that it's all a White House washout. Bush couldn't claim progress if Petraeus isn't claiming progress. General Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about the progress in Iraq. Any discrepancy between what he says to them and what Bush says in the report will be torn apart within hours.
These people have made up their mind already about the war in Iraq and have lied to the American people. They trusted General Petraeus to deliver an honest report in September about the progress or lack thereof in Iraq. Now that they have a gist of what's going to be in it, they don't like it and now are trying to undermine the credibility of a four star General.
That reeks of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers in Iraq. General Petraeus has already said that we can probably maintain the same amount of security with less forces within a few months if things look good. That's counter to what Democrats say that Bush wants. So if we can do the same with less, then that's what we should do. We should trust the guy who knows counterinsurgency like the back of his hand instead of trying to force their own naive views upon the military.
Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.
Ok, then let's go with that. 11 out of 18 failed to be met so far. That means that 7 have been or are close to being done. So you're willing to bail out when they're almost 1/2 way done with those benchmarks? Democrats love to talk about soldiers dying for nothing, but they won't tell you that if they pull out of Iraq like they want to and Iraq spirals out of control, those who've fought and died to achieve what we have done so far will indeed be for nothing.
"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."
She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."
Even one of their own, Representative Brian Baird agrees that we should stay a little longer until they get back on their feet. He voted originally against the Iraq war. What do Democrats do about that? They try to run smear campaigns against him and discount his own findings. He went to Iraq and specifically asked to go into areas and get the full picture, not a "dog and pony show". But other Democrats didn't like that he came to a conclusion that differs from their own.
That's playing politics with soldiers lives and the lives of Iraqi civilians.
So go ahead, discount General Petraeus, you're only showing yourselves to be petty and weak when you don't get your way.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics
Mayors, legislators arrested in New Jersey corruption probe - CNN.com
It is important to remember that politicians should be held to the highest regard. We are entrusting them to run our nation. So when they are caught for corruption, it's one of the biggest let downs you can have in someone you voted for.
It's also dishonorable to everyone who fought and stood up for our rights to vote.
State Assemblymen Mims Hackett Jr. and Alfred E. Steele -- both Democrats -- and Passaic Mayor Samuel Rivera are among those arrested, the news release says.
Steele also serves as undersheriff in Passaic County, just outside Newark. Hackett is also mayor of Orange.
If these allegations are true, they not only deserve to lose their jobs, but to go to jail and serve as an example to others who might be thinking of becoming corrupt themselves.
Travis
Labels: Arrest, corruption, Politics
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Keith Olbermann Twists Words Yet Again
Here's a transcript of his latest rant, but there's a few problems of course:
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush’s trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.
And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.
But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.
As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying — is lying… will be lying — about Iraq.
He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper’s book “Dead Certain.”
“I’m playing for October-November,” Mr. Bush said to Draper.
That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.
Really Keith! Do tell!
Which is, to quote him: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence.”
Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay longer.”
And there it is, sir. We’ve caught you.
I'm confused, how do you catch someone when they say something out loud?
Your goal is not to bring some troops home — maybe — if we let you have your way now;
How do you know that? You're grasping at straws Keith. "I'm playing for October-November" could very well mean "I'm trying to get Iraqi violence levels down to acceptable levels around October or November. I want the American people more comfortable to keep US troops in Iraq until the Iraqi's are more able to stand on their feet, presumably within the next few months." Keith, you're assuming things. We all know that the President isn't exactly the best at public speaking.
Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;
How do you know that? You're assuming.
You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
So he's trying to get other Republican Presidential nominees to see the progress in Iraq and be ok with keeping them there if the need does arrive?
Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal — perpetuating this war indefinitely.
We simply can't afford to be at war forever. No one has even suggested it. Well except you.
War today, war tomorrow, war forever!
And you are playing at it!
Playing!
A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!
You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, sir.
You had none to start with Keith.
And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing — and this time, using the second of his two faces.
The President told reporters, “They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) “tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”
And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today: “Bush May Bring Some Troops Home.”
What makes it fraudulent? If General Petraeus says "we should bring down troop levels", how can you possibly argue with that? He's the guy on the ground, he's the one with the experience and he's the one who's actually making a difference. Oh wait, that's right, he's also the one that Democrats are already calling a "Political Hack" and other nasty names because they know he's going to show positive results and it'll completely take the wind out of Democrats argument of complete and immediate withdrawal.
While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President’s true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.
You're assuming again Keith, it seems to be a pattern with you.
But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen — a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.
Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush. Again. But now, we know why.
You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book
And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq — hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.
“If you look at my comments over the past eight months,” you told reporters, “it’s gone from a security situation — in the sense that we’re either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I’m able to speculate on the hypothetical.”
Mr. Bush, the only “hypothetical” here is that you are not now holding our troops hostage.
Hardly. Now the "hypothetical" is when can we bring troops home and how are the Iraqi security forces doing?
You have no intention of withdrawing them.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t pretend you’re thinking about it, does it?
That is your genius, sir — as you see it, anyway.
So, I'm confused, is Bush a genius or an idiot. Liberals flip flop on this so many times. But then again, they flip flop like a fish out of water, so it's not surprising.
You can deduce what we want — we, the people, remember us? — and then use it against us.
You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.
Ooooh a metaphor! I'm impressed!
And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq — or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq — they will get the bullet points: ‘Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.’
Yes, because after Generals on the ground have said we've captured or killed almost 4,000 Al-Qaeda members, we certainly are much less safe aren't we? Al-Zahirwi has said that Iraq is Al-Qaeda's main focus point now, we've seen evidence of that statement to be true, so we must indeed be less safe! It all makes sense now!
You can fool some of the people all of the time, can’t you, Mr. Bush?
You are playing us!
And as for the most immediate victims of the President’s perfidy and shameless manipulation — those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base…
Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death…
The President saved, for them, the most egregious “playing” in the entire trip.
“I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground — not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.”
One must compliment Mr. Bush’s writer.
That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.
But well crafted or not, is it true? I believe it is. I believe it's the right thing to do. Politicians, especially Democrats, will say or do anything to keep themselves in power and they see positive results coming from Iraq and with their constituency saying "get out of Iraq now!", they are stuck either looking like a pandering bunch of idiots, or a dangerously short sighted bunch of idiots.
For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people — nothing… could top that.
As if, sir, you listened to all the “calm assessments” of our military commanders –rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;
Pretty hard to dismiss General Petraeus isn't it? I mean he can do it, but it would be political suicide to do so.
As if, sir, your entire presidency was not a “nervous reaction”, and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;
As if, sir, “the media” does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation’s future may depend on the airing of dissent.
And as if, sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation’s agony and the nation’s insistence.
But this President has ceased to listen.
Why? Because there are vast consequences to withdrawal that Democrats simply don't see? They don't know about the 1991 slaughter of Iraqi citizens that rose up against Saddam that we encouraged? They don't think that we'd have a nation of pissed off people if we pulled out and they were summarily slaughtered as well?
This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.
To tell you the truth, I could give a shit what the world thinks of us. I only care about the safety and security of America.
And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will — on his orders — be killed before the year, maybe the month, is out.
Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.
Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.
Consider the singular fraudulence of this President’s trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.
Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.
And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November.” The goal in Iraq is “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence” and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.
In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.
Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.
Even if it means your resignation.
Won't happen.
Even if it means your impeachment.
REALLY won't happen. Democrats simply don't have the backbone to do it. So whine all you want, we all know you're full of hot air. They also don't have the votes, or the criminal charges.
Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.
President Cheney? Yeah, I'm sure that Democrats would go for that.
Even if it means a Democratic Congress — and those true Patriots among the Republicans — standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.
Go for it. Hell, I double dare you to do it. You'll end up getting the reputation that you so richly deserve just like the one you got after Democrats defunded the Vietnam war. Ones of cowardice and undermining troops with no money to pay for proper equipment and supplies.
But alas, Democrats don't have the backbone to do it. They are too worried about doing what's popular instead of what's "right" in their minds. They lack the courage, the conviction, and the moral radar to actually do anything about the Iraq war, which they are so enraged about.
This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days…
Not while you, sir… are playing.
And you sir, are assuming, grasping at straws, and trying to rile up people who aren't going to have the intestinal fortitude to stand by their principles.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, idiocy, iraq, Keith Olbermann, Politics, Republicans
Sen. Sam Brownback on Yahoo! News Photos
Oh my God, how sad! I count 10 people that came to see Senator Brownback. That's just pathetic. I think I might be able to garner up more warm bodies then that.
Travis
Labels: Pathetic, Politics, Senator Sam Brownback
Arrest Warrant Issued For Fugitive Fundraiser Hsu - News Story - KTVU San Francisco
Uh Oh, it looks like major Democratic donor Norman Hsu has skipped out on his court appearance and there's been a warrant out for his arrest. It'll be pretty nice to see him in handcuffs because once he's arrested, he won't be getting bail and his $2 million dollar bail has been forfeited to the county. A nice chunk of change if you ask me.
I wonder if Representative Kennedy will NOW return the campaign donations that Hsu gave or if he's still going to argue about sending back the $6k.
But one thing Kennedy didn't take into account was the fact that Hsu was already convicted of the crime and was due to be sentenced to 3 years in jail when he skipped out in 1992.
Last week, Hsu said he thought the criminal charges had been taken care of when he completed his bankruptcy proceedings in the early 1990s.
"I have not sought to evade any of my obligations and certainly not the law," Hsu said in a prepared statement.
Really Hsu? Then why did you skip out on your bail today? It's because you're a common criminal who thinks he's above the law.
I wonder why Democrats don't get all in a hissy over this guy. He's basically the same thing as Jack Abramoff. A corrupt major donor to a political party. So let's hear it Democrats. Tell me what a horrible guy this Hsu is and how he deserves to go to jail.
Or will you end up being the apologist and making excuses?
Travis
Labels: corruption, Democrats, Politics
Source: GOP leaders want Craig to quit as planned - CNN.com
Ha ha! I was only kidding! That seems to be what Senator Larry Craig is saying now that he's come out and is trying to withdraw his resignation from the Senate. He's actually trying to get his guilty plea withdrawn as well.
I've spoken with several people in the criminal justice field and they have all agreed that his chances of getting his guilty plea withdrawn are almost zero. They have all said that a judge would look at it and say "why should I allow this. You understood it, you signed it, and you moved on with your life."
Senator Craig is only doing this because he wants to keep his job. Personally, I think even if he does manage to keep his job by some miracle, the voters of Idaho, a VERY conservative state, would vote him out anyways.
Sorry Larry, but you broke the law, you plead guilty, now you want to avoid the heat from committing that crime. It's simply not going to happen.
Travis
Labels: crime, Politics, Republicans, resignation, Senator Larry Craig
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Rep. Kennedy Will Keep Hsu Donations
No of course not, why would he bother returning money so that it at least appeared that he wasn't going to be swayed by tainted money? Even Hillary returned Hsu's money. Now is he not returning the money because he actually needs it, or is he not returning it because he's a scumbag?
Travis
Labels: corruption, Democrats, Politics
Back to work: Congress faces tough choices on Iraq - CNN.com
Well Congress is back to work and their top agendas are Iraq, the SCHIP, and the mortgage crisis going on.
I think what you'll find is that not a lot is actually going to get done on the Iraq front until you see the report from General Petraeus next Monday. What's worse is that even with positive parts leaking out into the wild world, you're seeing Democrats already trying to spin it towards getting us out of Iraq asap.
The same report will also be cited by anti-war Democrats who say military success has little relevance given the failure of Iraqi politicians to stop sectarian fighting and create a viable government.
Does the Iraqi Parliament need to get on top of things? You bet your ass they do, but to leave Iraq is indeed a vast mistake. With the threats we are getting already from other nations such as Iran, leaving Iraq without a stable government would be a big mistake by anyone who has a brain's measure.
Travis
Labels: Congress, Democrats, iraq, Politics
Friday, August 31, 2007
Reid Opens Door to Pact With Antiwar Republicans - washingtonpost.com
You all know the only reason why Reid is willing to "negotiate" now is because he knows that his previous statements of "the war is lost" has pissed off a LOT of people and now he has to do something to make it appear like he's on top of the issue.
"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."
Bullshit. He was thinking that his way was the only way until he got smacked back by the votes and vetoes of the President. Now that his constituents are pissed, he's rethinking his way around things to try to appease them.
Good job Reid, appeasement always works. :)
Travis
Labels: iraq, Politics, Republicans, Senator Harry Reid
Well-placed GOP sources: Craig likely to quit soon - CNN.com
Is Senator Craig going to resign soon? There are rumors abound about his resignation coming as early as today, but with rumors being just rumors, we don't know until it comes straight from the horses mouth.
Personally, I think he should resign. His story doesn't match up to what he plead guilty to and he's offered conflicting statements. First it was a misunderstanding, then it was entrapment.
Sounds fishy to me.
Travis
Labels: Arrest, Politics, resignation, Senator Larry Craig
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
VOA News - Pakistan Minister Says Musharraf-Bhutto Alliance Nearly Complete
We've been keeping an eye on the political scene in Pakistan for a while now because if Musharraf falls, a hard line Islamic militant leadership is quite possible to fill the power vacuum. If that happens, they now have access to nuclear weapons; something the US and anyone else with half a brain can never allow.
Well Musharraf has now decided to share some power with a political enemy, there by hoping to avoid a conflict that may cost him his leadership post.
It's all something that we should be concerned with, especially considering that Osama Bin Laden is believed to be within some areas of Pakistan. If true and a militant leadership replaces Musharraf, you can bet your ass we're going into Pakistan.
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Politics
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Iran Prepared to Fill Iraq Power Vacuum
Sounds like a deal with the devil to me. Of course they're willing to "help out" in Iraq. They've been taking pot shots at our guys for quite some time now and they'd be happy to step in and loot the country that they fought for a long 8 years in the 80's.
But that doesn't deter one politician. One who sees through their bullshit rhetoric and is willing to call them on their nuclear program: Bush? Nope. Blair? Nope. France's President Sarkozy. FRANCE? Let me look at that report again. Yep, says France.
Sarkozy is saying that if diplomacy doesn't work, then airstrikes against their nuclear program are certainly in order.
"This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," he said, adding that it was the worst crisis currently facing the world.
Sarkozy criticized Russia for its dealings on the international stage. "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality," he said.
"When one is a great power, one should not be brutal."
Energy disputes between Russia and neighbors such as Belarus and Ukraine have raised doubts in Europe about Moscow's reliability as a gas exporter. It supplies Europe, via its neighbors, with around a quarter of its gas demands.
Sarkozy had warm words for the United States, saying friendship between the two countries was important. But he said he felt free to disagree with American policies, highlighting what he called a lack of leadership on the environment.
I simply cannot believe this is coming from a French President. Tough words followed up with diplomacy. Now are they willing to back those words up, or are they simply empty words? The Iranian government thinks they are empty words.
They call him "inexperienced" and dismiss his words. That might be a dangerous thing to do Iran. You simply have no idea if there's a storm brewing over your continued defiance of the UN and for your calls for the destruction of Israel.
With France having it's own problems with Muslim "students" who riot and such, maybe it's time that the French are starting to grow a pair? One would hope so.
Travis
Labels: France, iran, military, nuclear program, Politics
The Connecticut Post Online - Town Council drops pants ordinance
Finally a town that sees through the bullshit and thought that they might have better things to do. I am starting to feel better now.
Travis
My Experiences With Brian Baird and Jon Soltz - Part 2
So, last night I heard that my Representative Brian Baird was going to be in Vancouver doing a town hall meeting over his change in his stance in the Iraq war. He was now supporting it and was facing his critics. Should be fun and I'll get to see some fireworks, I thought.
Well there was and more. First off, I arrived at Fort Vancouver High School's auditorium with about 500 other people around 7pm and sat there for a while and listened to what he had to say.
Let me tell you something, he's about the only Democrat in the whole of Congress I have respect for. He told everyone about his conceptions of what to expect when he went to Iraq twice (at his own personal expense) and that he came back with an overwhelming feeling of things were improving from our soldiers, regional leaders and Iraqi civilians.
He also saw the carnage that can happen in Iraq and came to the same conclusion that I did a while ago: If we leave these people, they will be slaughtered, a theocracy will be set up, and we will eventually have to go back and destroy the militants all over again. He said he was 95% certain of that.
But while he's talking, I see a man who's over dressed for the occasion. He's wearing a suit and tie, hair combed nicely, he just didn't fit in. I couldn't see his face, but I thought he was with the security detail. Then he started to talk. I didn't catch his name at first, but he sounded REALLY familiar. Then I heard Brian Baird say "I appreciate your opinion Mr. Soltz".
"MOTHERFUCKER!", I thought, "it CAN'T be JON SOLTZ" can it? Sure enough, I caught a glimpse of his face. Sure enough it was him. The same Jon Soltz who berated a soldier who was saying that the surge in Iraq was working at Yearly Kos for "talking about politics in my uniform". I wrote about it earlier.
So, I decided that I'd corner Jon about his little bit of hypocrisy and see what he had to say. After he was done berating Brian Baird (not rudely mind you), he was shaking hands, and waiting for the press to get ready to interview him. I was standing behind him when the press were just gathering around him. About 5 or so reporters were writing things down when I asked him these questions:
"Mr. Soltz, first off, I'd like to thank you for your service to our country". I shook his hand because I was sincere in that regard. Anyone who picks up a weapon and defends my country, I have an immediate respect for, regardless of their political viewpoint.
Travis:
"Mr. Soltz, you berated a soldier at Yearly Kos for wearing a uniform while talking about politics"
Jon:
"I acted like an asshole to that soldier. I should have handled it better."
Travis: "But Mr. Soltz, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical that you berated this man who wasn't talking about politics, only about the successes he's seen in Iraq after the surge, when you have a political website and there's a picture of you in uniform?"
Jon:
Who was taken aback mind you.
"Well......I have the right to use that photo in any way I want..." and he trailed off for a second.
All the while, reporters are writing furiously. I don't know if they were writing about what we were talking about, but they were writing as fast as they could.
Travis:
"Well Mr. Soltz, if you do have that right, which I'm not contesting, don't you think it makes you look like a hypocritical jerk if you're going to berate someone for something and then turn around and appear to do the exact same thing"?
Jon:
"Thank you for your time, I have to go talk to these people now".
I didn't push the issue as there were a lot of people around and I still didn't get to ask my questions to Brian Baird and I didn't want to be asked to leave. But I think I got my point across.
So I listened to what Rep. Baird had to say. He gave example after example along with facts to back up his opinion, but most of the crowd wasn't having any of it.
What I really was disgusted with was the manners of everyone in the audience. Regardless of your stance on issues, people would shout out their opinions without waiting for anyone else to finish what they were saying.
Some people brought up the fact that we don't go into other countries that need our help, so I thought I'd stick up for Mr. Baird and said "We went into Liberia when no one else would. How many other nations are in Liberia?"
That shut the guy up pretty quickly. What I also noticed was the complete lack of homework done by the anti-war crowd. They had no clue about the region, how it works, or even who the major players were.
Several people asked why surrounding countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia weren't helping, I knew I was in for a treat. Mr. Baird said point blank: "you don't want the Iranian or Syrian's help" Jordan and other allies in the region aren't going to help because their view point is "we didn't have these problems before the invasion".
Mr. Baird seemed to have a good grasp on things and really had done his homework on the issue. I must say I was very impressed by a Democrat, which as you all know, doesn't happen often.
So then one person asked why can't we just leave the mess as is. The guy who asked it was obviously a college student who had ZERO responsibilities in his life. Mr. Baird asked him if he broke something would he replace it or fix it? The guy was speechless.
Then there was the run on guys. There were dozens of people standing there waiting to ask their questions, and some people would just drone on and on about various things that were "wrong" in their head but they never actually asked a question or made a statement. It pissed off a lot of people. There were cat calls of "get to the point"!
Well around 11:00 last night, I finally got to my turn to ask my questions. However, they were going to call it a night so I only got 1 minute to say my piece.
I gave Mr. Baird a disclaimer: "I must warn you, I'm a Republican". His head bowed a little bit waiting for the next attack to come. "However, I voted for you twice". He said "Thank you". I told him "You're the best man for the job when I voted for you, and you're the best man for the job now". His ears perked up.
I asked Mr. Baird about the Iranian threat because of the sniper rifle situation where they bought expensive sniper rifles to fight "drug dealers" only to have hundreds of them end up in insurgents hands within 6 weeks of delivery. I wrote about it here earlier. As soon as I mentioned the Iranian sniper rifles being delivered to insurgents and that it was confirmed by the weapon's manufacturer, his ears and whole demeanor perked right up.
He pointed at me and agreed whole heartedly. I got a few people who said I was lying or worse, but Mr. Baird came to my defense: "what he is saying is 100% true, that was a recently declassified document. I'm glad you did your homework". I looked around at the people who said I was lying and said: "Apparently you didn't do yours". I got sneered at.
His answer wasn't as clear as I would have liked. He said that we are isolating and undermining the Iranian government with sanctions and "other methods". He said that the Iranian threat was real and that to underestimate them or to "go it alone" would be a mistake that we would all pay for.
But the best part was when a man behind me said "Don't bomb Iran". So, I had enough at this point and turned to him and said: "Ok genius, if you're so smart, with the Iranians supporting a very large portion of the insurgency in Iraq, how would you combat it". I made sure to make my comments loud enough for the auditorium to hear. He didn't have an answer. I asked him "Well if we're not bombing Iran, what should we do. Don't chastise Mr. Baird if you don't have a solution yourself. Just saying "Don't bomb Iran" isn't good enough if you don't have an alternative, so let's hear it. We're waiting". He again was speechless.
After 11:30, it was time to wrap things up. Being that I actually have ideas for the Representative, I stuck around and spoke with him face to face. I told him that the biggest complaint right now is the lack of electricity. Most Iraqis are without electricity and have to use generators. Using generators means that you can't power all of the stuff you want to do when you're at home, so you have to pick and choose. That usually means the air conditioner and a few appliances at most. I told him to get electricity up and running as quickly as possible and the insurgency will go down.
Think about that for a moment. If you're in 120 degree heat all day, every day, you tend to get angry and snap at the smallest things. If you have electricity and are sitting in a 70 degree room when it's 120 outside, then you feel much better. Besides, when you go from 70-120 degrees, you tend to want to stay inside as much as possible.
I thanked the Representative for his time, told him thanks for taking a beating, thanked him for truly researching the topic and coming to his own conclusions, even though it meant that he would be taking the road he thought was right instead of what was popular. That to me is what leadership is about. It means that you follow in your own heart what you think is right and what is in the best interests of the people. No one, with the exception of Jon Soltz even began to know what they were talking about, let alone actually have been in Iraq to understand the complexities of the region.
With General Petraeus's report coming from the White House (which Baird said was a mistake), he said he agrees with General Petraeus in that we should start bringing our guys home in around the springtime if current levels of Iraqi progress holds.
Mr. Baird also suggested that we have another town hall meeting in April to discuss any successes or failures. He mentioned that his general thoughts are, sustain the current levels until April, then gradually bring troops home as the Iraqis start to fend for themselves. They are already starting to show signs of standing on their own two feet, so why yank the rug out from underneath them when they are still in training wheels?
He also mentioned that there will be car bombs that go off and occasional assassinations, but it will go down. And I believe him.
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda, Brian Baird, insurgent, iran, iraq, Jon Soltz, nuclear program, Politics
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Clinton lied, people died
Bill Clinton's mountain of evidence against his lies over his response to the rise of Al-Qaeda is getting bigger by the moment. Now the recent CIA inspector general's report has flatly contradicted Clintons statements that he "worked hard to kill him" and "authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him".
Yet, Michael Scheuer, our CIA Bin Laden head honcho flatly contradicts that.
(Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)
So there's no immediate comment? Why not? Because they want this to blow over. They want Clinton to still appear bulletproof to the liberal idiots who don't want to ask the tough questions about the run up to 9/11.
I want answers of who did what, why, when, and what can be done to prevent it in the future. I'm willing to forgive Clinton if he actually came up and said "I didn't take the threat seriously enough. I failed the American people. I was too involved with Monica to care. I thought I'd have another chance."
Something of an admission of what went wrong and where would be the least that he owes me and the rest of America. However, he won't do that. He's continually wanting to place blame on the Bush administration and Republicans. Hell in one of his interviews he says that the same people who blame him now were the same people who didn't take the warnings from Clinton seriously enough.
That well may be true, but as President, you have a moral obligation to protect America and it's citizens. He should have sent the military in and gave them blanket orders: "capture if you can, kill if you must".
Hell, even I thought the 1998 missile lobbing at Bin Laden was a bit of a "wag the dog" event. I was wrong then. See Bill how easy it is to admit you're wrong? I fully admit that I didn't think terrorism was that big of a deal in 1998. However, I don't have the CIA telling me about threats. I don't have the FBI looking into things. I don't have the vast intelligence and military capabilities that you had at your disposal when the threat of Al-Qaeda was growing.
However Bill, once Osama and al-Zahirwi are dead and gone, then the healing can begin. Until that day happens, and it MUST happen by American hands, it will be salt in the wound. If either of these two die of old age or something similar, I won't forgive EITHER President Bush or Clinton. I want them both looking down the barrel of a Navy SEALS' weapon or waking up with their throats slit.
Travis
Labels: 9-11, al-qaeda, Bill Clinton, lies, Politics, terrorism
Iran threatens German banks over pull-out
Wow, the Deutsche bank is one of the largest banks in the world and for them and Dresdner bank to pull out of Iran signals to me that the financial squeeze is really starting to take effect.
Of course, Iran is stepping up the rhetoric:
The vice governor of the Iranian central bank, Mohammad Jafar Mojarrad, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the banks' actions could have long-term consequences.
"We are not happy with the banks' decision," he said.
"There is no guarantee that one can return when the good times are here again."
Mojarrad said that because business ties are based on trust, it would be "very difficult to re-establish trust when it has been abused."
What that tells me is that the US economic sanctions as well as the fiscal responsibilities that come with it are starting to take root in Iran. Banks only care about money (well duh) and if they see potentially losing billions in dollars over dealing with Iran, any idiot would pull out of Iran in a heartbeat.
This is actually a very good tactic as it pushes Iran into a corner without having to extend ourselves militarily. It allows us to drive a wedge between Iran and others, and it makes Iran think twice about it's nuclear intentions.
Just how far and how expensive does Iran want their nuclear program to get? Hard to say, but they've backed down before under less pressure, so when the third set of sanctions comes around, you can bet that Iran will start to see that we are serious over their ambitions.
Travis
Labels: Economy, iran, nuclear program, Politics
NIE: Intelligence community has tepid faith in Iraqi leaders - CNN.com
It's perfectly fine to have nervous feelings towards the current Iraqi leader. Most people are justified with that. The guy has a hard job to do, but it's not impossible. Sure, I imagine there are things that he could be doing better, but I'm willing to cut him some slack.
Hillary Clinton isn't. That's fine too, but she's calling for his ouster.
Clinton went on to say she "hopes that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."
Hillary, the guy was democratically elected. Calling for his replacement at such a crucial time isn't going to help the fledgling government. They'll have to have new elections, get a guy in, then he'll have to get up to speed. Those things take time and waste valuable resources.
What it amounts to is her trying to have it both ways. Undercut the Iraqi government while trying to pander to Americans who want the surge efforts to continue.
We all see the sheep's clothing Hillary.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, iraq, Politics
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
U.S. dismisses Iran nuclear cooperation - Focus on Iran - MSNBC.com
It's pretty obvious that the Iranians are trying to drag feet on their nuclear program. They can see that China and Russia are starting to wobble in their support over their nuclear ambitions. Now, here's a bit of rhetoric I can stand behind:
“Iran is clearly trying to take the attention from its continued development of bomb-making capabilities, and I don’t think the Security Council will be distracted,” said Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We are continuing to move forward with other members of the Security Council on a third resolution.”
It's coming down to the wire on sanctions against Iran. They know that their gasoline supplies are tight and any sanctions could cause a revolt in the populace. Most Iranians are under 30 years old and they don't really like the Mullahs, Clerics, or any other secular leaders. They enjoy western music, movies, and products, so they certainly aren't going to want to go from that to burqa's and full beards.
But wait! There's more!
“If Iran’s leaders truly want the world’s trust, they would ... start to cooperate fully and unconditionally and suspend activities of international concerns,” said Schulte, alluding to council demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment program and stop construction of a plutonium-producing reactor.
And he's exactly right. If Iran really was only after nuclear power, they would have a real coup on their hands to allow the IAEA to come in and take a poke around and say "See! I told you the American's were lying!". That would ripple throughout the Middle East as America would be seen as a provocateur and a liar. However, because they don't, pretty much the entire Middle East is worried about Iran and it's growing influence in the region. There are active campaigns to undermine the Iranian government and economy.
With Iran's refusal to do anything of importance with the IAEA, their chances of coming out of this unscathed is pretty slim.
Travis
Labels: iran, nuclear program, Politics, un
My Way News - Iraq Leader Lashes Out at U.S. Critics
Oh, poor al-Maliki. He can't seem to take criticism very well.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed the U.S. presidential campaign for the recent tough words from the Bush administration and from other American politicians.
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of a three-day visit to Syria.
"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.
If our help isn't wanted, we would be happy to leave you to the wolves. All of a sudden the mood changes doesn't it? Look, if you're going to make friends with those who are taking pot shots at US soldiers who are protecting your dumb ass, then perhaps you ought to start asking them for protection against the militias who are wanting you dead. Or perhaps you can ask them for the billions it's going to take to rebuild your country.
Oh wait, that's right, they don't give two shits about you because they are only interested in themselves. Just get your security forces up and running, weed out corruption, and stop taking month long vacations while US soldiers do the job you obviously can't do: Protect your citizens.
Travis
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
