Thursday, September 27, 2007

Dem Candidates clear up position on Troop Withdrawal (Finally)

As the Democrats try to keep their Sugar Daddy, happy, they desperately try to sound 'not insane' to the other 99% of America. All four of them make George Bush look like Winston Churchill. The loft (link above) selected key quotes from the gibberish in last nights debate.

Sen. Barack Obama, who was soundly criticized by fellow Democrats earlier this summer regarding comments about Pakistan, commented on Iraq by saying:

I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office ... then I will drastically reduce our presence there..."

On one hand, Obama says it would be irresponsible to predict the situation in Iraq, but on the other, he tells America exactly what he'd do with the troop levels. Isn't it irresponsible to offer a solution when you don't know what the problem is?

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered his insights on Iraq by saying:

And my position is this: that you cannot start the reconciliation of Iraq, a political settlement, an all-Muslim peacekeeping force to deal with security and boundaries and possibly this issue of a separation, which is a plan that I do believe makes sense, until we get all our troops out, because they have become targets.

According to the governor, we can't have a peaceful solution until our troops are gone. Yet, in order to have peace, we need to wipe out al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents. How does he expect to do that without troops?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich said regarding Iraq, "If we divide Iraq, essentially we're going to be setting the stage for more war, and I stand for strength through peace, a whole new approach." What in the world is he talking about?

Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.

"I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," he said.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

If you are using troops to go after insurgents and other terrorists in order for there to be peace and a chance for the political system to work, what part of the troop surge doesn't she understand?

I miss W already. Sigh !!!

Submitted by D.B Jackson

Monday, September 24, 2007

Gee, Ya Think?

From the Associated Press

NY Times says discounting MoveOn ad was 'mistake'
September 24, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Times' ombudsman says the newspaper violated its standards when it gave the liberal activist group a $77,508 price break on a full-page advertisement targeting Gen. David H. Petraeus.

The organization paid $64,575, instead of the standard $142,083, for the ad questioning the war in Iraq, public editor Clark Hoyt wrote in a column published Sunday.

You want to criticize a man who enlisted in the US Armed Forces to protect his country for his lifetime? Sure, sounds good, we'll throw in a 55% discount. You want home delivery with that?

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Workers of the World

"workers of the world, let's have a conversation"

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Monday, September 17, 2007

HillaryCare 2008

Let us today bask in the glow of affordable universal health care, as proposed by the esteemed Senator from "New York"... (for a copy of the plan, feel free to visit the "Fables and Bedtime Stories" section of your local library)

“Today as we strive for a new beginning to the 21st century, I believe that everyone — every man, woman and child — should have quality, affordable health care in America,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans.”
Well, I do agree that the health care system in this country is broken. Too much paperwork, high costs, too much power out of the hands of the people who seek healthcare... so let's start out by saying "We're with you so far, Hillary! Don't let us down!"

In a speech at a hospital here, as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the ($101 billion!!) plan partially by ending Republican-backed tax cuts for people earning $250,000 or more,...
You're starting to lose me, Hillary. While I don't favor granting special privileges to citizens based on their income levels, I don't really believe that the solution to any national problem is "eliminate tax cuts". And just how much of the $101 billion would you gain through higher taxes on people making the arbitrarily-chosen $250k per year or more? well as by netting billions of dollars in savings by reorganizing the health care system. ..
OK, I'm hanging by a thread, dear Senator from "New York". Reorganizing the health care system? Aside from a nebulous reference to a reorganization (What the heck does that mean? Doctors answer the phone, while lower-paid receptionists dole out medical advice?), let's look at what happens when corporations reorganize. They usually invoke additional charges (i.e., Higher Costs) when they reorganize. And "reorganization" is usually done through a series of maneuvers - when exactly will we start to see these so-called reorganization savings? In my lifetime, or my not-yet-born grandchild's lifetime?

She also said she would press insurance companies and drug companies to focus on providing lower cost care — while at the same time, she said, she would ban insurance companies from turning down people for insurance because of health status or pre-existing health conditions.
OK, you've totally lost me now, Hillary. While I'm not a healthcare expert, my understanding is that people with health issues will increase overall costs to be borne by insurance companies (akin to car insurance companies that insure accident-prone drivers). So, the challenge for the health insurance companies becomes... (1) more government intervention, most likely leading to more paperwork, additional regulation, and more administrative people to handle these requirements; (2) increased healthcare pool coverage (more people to insure, including people with existing conditions), likely to increase the costs of providing health care in total and on average; and (3) reduce your costs for providing health care.

How do the companies lower costs? I think they could either only provide coverage to people without pre-existing coverage (NOT ALLOWED -- Hillary), reduce administrative staff and costs (NOT LIKELY -- government control/intervention), or reduce doctor salaries and/or staffing.

Hmm...maybe Hillary's plan really is to replace the doctors with lower-paid receptionists...
(Source of article: The New York Times)

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Friday, September 14, 2007

Presidents calls on Democrats to support the Troops

The president has more faith in the democrats than I do (God Bless his trust and innocence). The last thing Pelosi, Clinton, Reed, Kerri and Schumer want is for the military to be successful in Iraq. THE LAST THING !! Great Speech though.

"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

"So tonight I want to speak to Members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for." G.W. Bush addresses the nation on Iraq 9/13/07.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Surrender Now!

A quick review of the proposed Iraq policies of the two leading Democrats:

Obama: Immediately start decreasing our field force by "1 or 2 brigades" a month, with total surrender by the end of 2008. No mention about securing peace in Iraq or the Middle East, containment of Al Qaeda and/or the terrorist movements in Iraq... I guess the Iraqis will stop fighting themselves as soon as the USA leaves, right?

The Other Clinton: Immediately withdraw troops, secure stability in Iraq, and initiate a "new intensive diplomatic initiative in the region" - which would include Iraq's helpful neighbors Iran and Syria. There's a winning proposal... we'll take out our armed forces, invite Syria and Iran to the "Peace Party" meetings, and stability will break out in Iraq. While we're at it, why don't we offer to pay for Universal Health Care for the Middle East too? I'm wondering if Hillary inhaled what Bill didn't.

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Obama's Plan to Exit War by end of 2008 (LINK)

Obama to end war by 2008?? I was hoping for more detail. A cynic might say that this is an irresponsible campaign promise designed to appeal to the loony 'war is never the answer' lefties.

I am curious about what happens to Iraq when we leave, what happens to the terrorists we are fighting there, how to deal with insurgents reaction to a precise timetable. More to follow, I am sure...

"I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now," the Illinois senator said in excerpts from a speech he was to deliver later in Iowa. The excerpts were released by his presidential campaign.

He said he would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of 2008.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Monday, September 10, 2007

Never Forget: September 11, 2001

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Another Call for Troop Withdrawal

The Democrats have found their voice to lead troop withdrawal efforts from Iraq:

"[S]ince the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates. . . there shouldn’t be any cause for astonishment. . . the Democrats’ failure to stop the war," bin Laden says. He also says that "despite the differing intentions," his interests overlap with corporations and others who perpetuate the war."

If Bin Laden agrees with the Democrats, that troops should be withdrawn, what does that say about whether troop withdrawal is the right answer for the USA?
Better question: what does it say about the policies of the Democrats?

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Friday, September 7, 2007

Mark Levin on Charles Schumer

"Charles Schumer is a bigger disgrace than Larry Craig. He could only hope that his only problem was being a men's room pervert" Mark Levin 9/6/07

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Thursday, September 6, 2007

The Hill-Bill-ies, Round 2?

The Washington Post's David Broder recently stated: "Her marriage is the central fact in her life, and this partnership of Bill and Hillary Clinton is indissoluble. She cannot function without him, and he would not have been president without her. If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder."

Somebody hide the interns.

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Hugh Hewitt: Schumer's slam on the Troops (again)

The left always shows its true colors. Like Bill Clinton, Chuck 'loathes' the military. Dirtbag !!

Senator Schumer's Slander On The Military Today on the Senate floor, New York's Senator Schumer slandered the American military when he stated: The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: "We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves." Asserting that the sacrifice of the American troops has been futile and their efforts in vain is an astonishing and vile statement for a sitting member of the United States Senate to make.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Al Gore: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

It is hard to do better than Al Gore for pure entertainment.

I'd have to go back and re-read the coverage, but I believe that he did claim to invent the internet and he did claim that he (preppie) and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. What am I missing? ( I don't remember Love Canal - I stopped listening at that point)

“Modern politics seems to require and reward some capacities that I don’t think I have in abundance … such as a tolerance for … spin rather than an honest discussion of substance. Apparently, it comes easily for some people, but not for me,” Gore says.

Peretz reports specifically on Gore’s coverage in The New York Times and in The Washington Post, each of which reported and/or referenced Gore’s supposed claims that he invented the Internet, that the two main characters in Love Story were based on him and Tipper, and that he discovered the toxic waste at Love Canal.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson