I will admit that had I been home last night I would have watched the debates but not being there meant that I was only able to catch the replay late last night and by that time I just wasn’t all that interested.
However, I did get to see Romney call McCain out on the lies the McCain camp spread about Romney wanting a timetable for Iraq.
What I found interesting was that McCain’s only retort about the lies was that Romney had “negative attack ads” playing against McCain and Huckabee’s record.
So let me get this straight:
An ad showing that your opponent voted against a tax cut = “negative attack ad”
Lying about your opponent = acceptable politics
Hmm, good to know for the future.
I saw this article online last night and nearly gagged on the clear intent of the article.
If you head to the website for the, LOL, The Center for Public Integrity (that name is just too funny when you read articles like this one) you will find the cover story is: The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War
They are claiming that the Bush administration knowingly lead the US into the Iraqi war with premeditated malice. They want everyone to believe that the world all knew that Iraq had no WMD and it was only through Bush and his administrations use of 935 statements over a 2 year period were the American people duped into believing that the war was needed.
They ignore all of the other people that were saying the same thing; Jacque Chirac of France, President Clinton, VP Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Senator Kerry, and Senator Clinton just to name a few. The facts were believed to be known it wasn’t until the country had been secured that we found out that the intelligence estimates from all across the globe had been incorrect.
As journalists they intentionally use inflammatory language such as “false pretenses” to lead to their thinking versus laying out all of the facts and allowing you to come to your own conclusions because then they wouldn’t be able to make you believe that the Bush administration knew all along that there were no WMD…because we all know that we just went in there for the oil, right?
I think if their intent was to try to smear a great President then they have done a great hatchet job with this story. I am sorry that I’m even paying attention to it but we all have to do our part to point out that just because you have a snappy name like “Public Integrity” doesn’t mean that you are really in the business of maintaining any degree of public morality. In this case these hatful people are just trying to push their agenda.
It is time that the Democrats pull their collective head out from there ass and see what is going on in the world.
PR Newswire: Pelosi: President's Policy is a Path to 10 More Years of War in Iraq
AP: Democrat Reid: Iraq plan unacceptable
Reuters: Democratic 2008 contenders bicker over Iraq pullout
If they truly believe that the Iraq policy is wrong then they have the ability to pull the plug…but they won’t do it. They can’t do it.
Democrats could, right now, vote to de-fund the Iraq War and have the troops home by year end. So why wont they do it?
They know that the chaos that would ensue in the Middle East as well as the image of US soldiers turning tail and running would only cause bitter hatred of not only the US abroad but of the Democrat Party here at home.
To make myself perfectly clear…the reason the Democrats will not vote to de-fund the war is because they know that they are wrong.
They know that the ‘Bush-Petreaus Doctrine’ is correct and that given time the Iraqi government and military will be fully functional. They also know that if they were to win in 2008 (I’m highly doubtful that they will) they will have to continue helping the Iraqis and therefore be labeled as a liar or a ‘flip-flopper.’ That is why they want Bush to end it…if they do, they look weak…if they wait until 2008, they won’t end it, so they will look like liars…if they win and they end the war prematurely they will be responsible for the consequences of leaving the vacuum in the Middle East…they would rather blame Bush for that.
In the end it looks like the Democrats are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” 2008 just might be another sweep…with the Democrats on the losing side this time.
Number one, I can not believe that the Committee Chairman of Foreign Affairs can’t remember that it was Congress itself, not the President, which asked for a report on the status of the surge. Do they actually believe that an upstanding four star General, who the Senate approved for this post, would actually come before Congress and lie?
Number two, what does this Democrat from California not “buy?”
Does he not “buy” that the number of deaths in Iraq is down?
Does he not “buy” that the numbers of IED’s are down?
Congress is filled with politicians and the military is filled with, you guessed it, military personnel. If there is a war to be waged or if we are looking to find out the status of the war I would look to the military leaders before I would look to the politicians. They are the ones that understand the goings on of the fight.
General Petraeus has done an exemplary job and should be commended not condemned by this Congress. If people like Clinton, Obama, or even Mr. Lantos have an axe to grind with the Bush Administration then they should be man enough to stand up to the administration not to bad mouth a decorated military officer and waste his time sitting in open session listening to these people belittle a report that they have yet to hear.
Here is the Presentation that General Petraeus presented to Congress.
Here is General Petraeus’s report to Congress.
Here is Ambassador Crocker’s report to Congress.
H/T to Fred at Real Debate for this one.
Do you see anything wrong with this photo and caption?
Here is the photo:
Here is the caption:
An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said.
Let me give you a small hint…The modern military has a tendency of shooting ammunition not throwing it!!!
The liberals keep stating that we need to get out of Iraq because we are neglecting our role in Afghanistan, but are we?
Today the AP reported that the US has stepped up our air attacks on Iraq (see U.S. Doubles Air Attacks in Iraq) by more than twice what we had done last year.
This seems to go right along with what the liberals are saying until you read the very last sentence:
“Air attacks in Iraq are still relatively low compared with the numbers of weapons dropped in Afghanistan - 929 this year as of May 15.”
For the record we have dropped 237 in Iraq so far in 2007.
So why is it that the media is not talking about the Afghanistan Operations? Could it be that there truly is a bias?
While Ann Coulter may not always be at the top of my hit parade she does make some great points.
Last nights op-ed was superb!
Here is a couple of excerpts from C'EST SI BON
"It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world. Evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters. "
"Those foreign leaders so admired by Democrats for hating George and loving Saddam are being replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States. American celebrities who threaten to move out of the country every election rather than live under a conservative leader are running out of countries to move to."
I should not be surprised to find the following headline in today’s Journal Times Online:
Rep. Ryan votes against bill to bring troops home next year
The facts are even in the story…
"this bill is larded with $21 billion in unrelated spending and other pork-barrel items that have nothing to do with supporting our troops in the war on terror." Said Paul RyanSo why was this article not titled the properly…Rep. Ryan votes against pork barrel bill?
Among the spending items he opposed in the bill include: $25 million for spinach farmers, $50 million for the “Capitol Hill,” $74 million for peanut storage costs, $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishing industries and $100 million for citrus producers.
The Journal Times can not see past their agenda to belittle our troops and undermine every effort to win the war.
Paul Ryan did the right thing by telling the Democrats that this is not the right answer and in the process exposed them for what they really are big time spenders, but I wasn’t surprised!
These are a few must reads:
The Boston Globe: Irreconcilable positions: support troops, oppose war
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist February 18, 2007
WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?
No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.
Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it. Continued…
LA Times: Redefining 'black'
Obama's candidacy spotlights the divide between native black culture and African immigrants.
By Louis Chude-SokeiFebruary 18, 2007
ALTHOUGH NOT quite able to pass for white, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been able to pass for African American. He is biracial, but not white; black, but not African American; American but not African. What has entranced the country more than his somewhat vague policies is Obama's challenge to conventional racial and cultural categories.
Among African Americans, discussions about his racial identity typically vacillate between the ideologically charged options of "black" versus "not black enough" or between "black" and "black, but not like us." Continued...
Very powerful article from today’s Opinion Journal:
Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress "supports the troops" while emboldening the enemy.
Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.
On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance between themselves and the war most of them voted to authorize in 2002.
The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to "support" the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their "bravery," while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to "protect" the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.
Continued…
