This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Jonn Lilyea

  • Hugo Chavez tries to rebuild macho image

    Now that Spanish King Juan Carlos famously has told Hugo Chavez to shut up, and Saudi King Abdullah has reiterated that same sentiment in more diplomatic terms, Chavez is seeking to inflate his macho image. It’s hard to do when Juan Carlos’ phrase has been reproduced as a popular ringtone, and Venezuelans have taken to erecting the phrase as a symbol of solditarity against Chavez. It sparked such anti-Chavez feelings, that at least two blogs have been shut down in Venezuela, as Kate reported last week.

    He’s also run afowl of the UN’s International Labor Organization;

    The International Labor Organization (ILO) denounced the Venezuelan government on Thursday, accusing it of abusing the rights of business owners to freely organize. At the same time, Colombia was praised for its progress in the protection of labor leaders. Venezuelan authorities rejected the statements, accusing the ILO of manipulating the truth for political reasons.

    In a report released on Wednesday, the U.N. labor agency called on the government of President Hugo Chavez to ensure that business groups can operate “free from violence, pressure, or threats of any kind against leaders and members.” The Venezuelan government was also urged to stop legal proceedings against senior officials of Fedecamaras, Venezuela’s major business chamber.

    So, Chavez easiest and safest target to build his macho image again is, of course, the United States – just like every other thug who knows we don’t strike them for their words and wild gestures. Safely tucked away from dissenters in Iran, Chavez and his little straightman buddy Ahmadinijad traded shots at the US (Reuters link);

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday the “empire of the dollar is crashing,” a day after his country and anti-U.S. ally Iran advocated action over the weakening U.S. currency during an OPEC summit in Riyadh.
     
    Chavez, who on Saturday said oil prices could double to $200 per barrel if the United States attacks Iran over its disputed atomic ambitions, spoke to reporters after talks with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    “Soon we will not talk about dollars because the dollar is falling in value and the empire of the dollar is crashing,” Chavez said in comments translated into Farsi from Spanish.

    “Naturally, by the crash of the dollar, America’s empire will crash,” Chavez said at a joint news conference with Ahmadinejad. The two presidents share the same viewpoint in denouncing U.S. influence in the world.

    Always the gentleman, Chavez charmed reporters at an impromptu news conference(Reuters link);

    Surrounded by a throng of reporters at an OPEC summit in Saudi Arabia, the president, who enjoys the media spotlight and often answers questions at length, excused himself.

    “Look I have to go,” Chavez said in comments aired on Venezuelan state television. “For a while now, I have needed to go to the bathroom and I am going to pee … Do you want me to pee on you?” 

    Real men always talk abut peeing on people, you know. 

    Back in Venezuela, things aren’t looking so good for for the Bolivarian Buffoon (Reuters link);

    Used to trouncing the opposition at the ballot box, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suddenly faces a new foe for a December referendum on scrapping term limits — high-profile disaffected supporters.
     
    An allied political party, a respected ex-defense minister, governors and a top legislator have all abandoned Chavez’s socialist coalition helping amplify the opposition’s criticism that his plan to revamp the constitution is authoritarian.

    The defections reflect misgivings among Chavez’s majority poor supporters, who still back his oil-financed social development crusade but worry the Cuba ally wants too much power as he brooks little dissent in the OPEC nation.

    “We’ve seen so-called ‘group-think’ develop. In other words, if you do not think like me, you are a traitor, you are with the CIA, you are a coup plotter,” said Ismael Garcia of the Podemos party, which split from Chavez’s self-styled “revolution” over the reform package.

    Polls show the anti-U.S. leader should win the December 2 vote but that it will be due to low opposition turnout, his personal approval ratings and sweeteners in the package such as reducing the workday and expanding social security benefits. 

    So, every time things get dicey at home, Chavez tours the world on his people’s dime. But Lucia writes at Caracas Chronicles that the media shouldn’t count the opposition out yet;

    This December is not last December. Standing in line for milk makes voters cranky. And Chávez is not on the ballot. This is important, because some moderate Chavistas may be willing to vote against the reforms even though they’re not entirely ready to give up on him yet. Chávez’s support outside his hard-core base is due to the misiones. But moderate Chavistas are very wary of extreme Chavismo: they don’t like the divisive rhetoric, the Fidel and Mahmoud love affairs, the spending abroad, the RCTV license cancellation, the violence against the students, the insults to the church. And they don’t like many of the reform proposals, either. The very vocal defections of Baduel and Podemos may underline what they themselves are feeling – this revolution is getting out of control.

    We may have reached a tipping point for this key segment of voters.

    At Venezuelan Politics, Tomas Sancio explains that Chavez’ prediction that the dollar indicates the fall of the United States is pointless blather;

    OK, for those of you who are unaware of the official Venezuelan exchange rate, it is a value pegged to the US Dollar (specifically Bs. 2150), not to the Euro.

    But then world is laughing at Chavez, and for the first time, he’s starting to hear it.

  • Happy Holidays, Maryland. Now bend over.

    In the wee hours of the morning, the Maryland legislature stuck it to Maryland taxpayers with a $1.4B tax hike according to the Washington Post;

    Before adjourning at 2:36 a.m., lawmakers had sent two bills needed to execute a referendum on slots to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), as well as another two tax bills and a measure to offer health insurance to 100,000 poor and uninsured adults without Medicaid coverage.

    Lawmakers also approved legislation directing O’Malley to trim spending in next year’s budget by about $550 million, including slowing the growth in education spending.

    “You’ve got to give Governor O’Malley a lot of credit for going out and, in essence, leading with his chin,” said House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel), who advised against holding the high-stakes session. “The governor took it all on his shoulders, and the legislature pretty much followed. . . . We’ve basically, in my estimate, taken a full legislative year of work and condensed it into 20 days.”

    Yeah, real fricken brave. How hard is it to just tell taxpayers to pay more rather than skim off the fat and waste in the budget?

    Legislation expected to be given final passage before adjournment included increases in sales, corporate income, tobacco and vehicle titling taxes, as well as an overhaul of the personal income tax system that would result in high-end earners paying more.

    To their credit, Maryland Republicans aren’t mincing their words;

    “Common sense and reason went out the window just to give the governor a victory,” said Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley (R-Frederick). “I think this whole thing has been a debacle, and taxpayers are stuck holding the bill.”

    Well, Marylanders that’s what we get – toss out a Republican governor who had a year-over-year surplus in the budget and bring in a known incompetent weasel from Baltimore who has squandered that surplus and adds “a measure to offer health insurance to 100,000 poor and uninsured adults without Medicaid coverage”. I’d like to see a roster of these poor souls.

    Time for me to move to Virginia, I suppose.

    UPDATE: Tons of thanks to Michele Malkin for linking to me again. Updated story posted here.

  • National healthcare; beaurocracy in your kitchen

    The Democrats want to buy your vote with a “comprehensive healthcare plan”. That sounds great, doesn’t it – everyone will have health care (even the people who up until now decided they didn’t want it), and it’ll all be handled by the government with it’s well-known inclination for efficiency and compassion – the same efficiency and compassion on display daily at your local post office.

    Aside from all of the normal reasons we don’t want government-mandated healthcare, New Zealand has illustrated another reason we don’t want governement do-gooders in our business (link from the UK’s Telegraph);

    A British man who moved to New Zealand has been told by officials that his wife is too fat to join him.

    Richie Trezise, 35, a rugby-playing Welshman, lost weight to gain entry to New Zealand after being rejected for being overweight and a potential burden on the health care system.

    Richie and Rowan Trezise have been battling to shed pounds

    His wife, Rowan, is now on a strict diet. However, she has been battling for months to shed the pounds so they can be reunited and live Down Under.

    Mr Trezise moved to New Zealand in September after shedding two inches from his waist on a crash diet. He said that if his wife was not allowed to come out by Christmas they would abandon the idea of emigrating.

    Using their health care plan as an excuse, Kiwis have decided that it can be used as a measure for who they allow into the country – and who they ban.

    We’ve all witnessed what the government has done to smoking in the last 40 years – they went from putting a warning label on cigarettes to taxing them out of reach for many people (cigarettes I bought in Panama last month were about $1/pack compared to $5/pack in Maryland).

    National health care would bring the goverment into your kitchens and your grocery stores. The “recommended daily allowances” at we which glance curiously today, could easily become a rationing plan – mandated daily allowances in order to continue qualifying for the national healthcare program.

    In Hillary’s plan back in 1993, she went as far as deciding who could and couldn’t be a doctor, based on ethnicity and race. Do you want the guy transplanting your ticker to be the guy who made the cut for med school based on the color of his skin? Since they’ve already shown their hand and told us to what extent they’re willing to reach into our lives as far as healthcare goes – is reaching into our refrigerators beyond them?

    We already know that Canada’s patients are crossing over the border for emergency care in the US, so when the US government takes over our healthcare, where do we go?

  • Slouching toward Ron Paul

    Stephan Dinan tries, in today’s Washington Times, to make Ron Paul look like the neo-folk-hero-type of this election cycle;

    They are crusty Iowa farmers enticed by doing away with the income tax, libertarian-minded college students in heavy-metal band T-shirts, antiwar Republicans looking for a champion, and folks worried about the Federal Reserve Board and paper money.

    They say they are the disaffected in politics, and this year they are finding a political home with Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who is shaking up the Republican presidential contest with phenomenal fundraising and the potential to convert that into enough votes to be a spoiler come January.

    But the image falls apart upon even a cursory analysis;

    “I don’t want to sound like one of these nut cases, there are probably some of them here,” said Tom Levins, waving his arm toward 2,000 fellow supporters rallying with Mr. Paul on Nov. 10 in Philadelphia. “But you have to wonder about the establishment. I’ve had it cross my mind, could he be the next political person knocked off?”

    “Probably some” nut cases, Tom? If you don’t want to sound like a nut case, you probably shouldn’t be perpetuating conspiracy theories like “the Establishment” is going to “knock off” Ron Paul because he’s polling about 4% among Republicans. Nor should you be hanging out with Michael Hamme;

    “It’s not about the issues, it’s about the Constitution,” said Michael Hamme, one of the rally-goers. “Basically, as I see it, we’re run by the Federal Reserve system, which is actually not legal.”

    I guess Mr. Bernacke would be surprised that he’s writing our laws and that he’s not bound by the Constitution. he’d probably demand a pay raise, too.

    The words “authentic” and “honest” pop up repeatedly when his supporters talk about Mr. Paul, and many say that’s why they’re willing to overlook their disagreements — and for a candidate who embraces an end to the drug war, the Internal Revenue Service and abortion, just about everyone finds something to disagree with.

    “He’s kind of no style and all substance. He wouldn’t be in the game if he didn’t really believe in what he’s saying,” Jacob Lyles, a 24-year-old investment banker from Arlington said in a telephone interview. He said Mr. Paul’s authenticity cuts through a lot of the political clutter to grab supporters. “I think that’s kind of the exact opposite of what his Republican opponents are saying.”

    “Authentic”, “honest” and “substance” are all things we’d like in our candidates – but we’d probably want a little bit of rational thinking, too. For one thing, Ron Paul, as president would have to get Congress to go along with proposals. Many of his proposals are laudible, but not realistic when one takes the time to look at the process required to become law. Since he’s “no style and all substance” that won’t help convince Congress, will it?

    Mr. Paul’s supporters say that they’re not liberal; they’re the true conservatives. But many of them are going to be first-time Republican primary voters. At the Philadelphia rally, an informal survey found party-switchers appeared to be the norm.

    “I tell you what, it hurt,” said Bob Larkin, who changed his Connecticut registration to vote in the Republican primary. “I had to swallow the bile and do it. As soon as Super Tuesday is gone, I’m independent again.”

    Shawntae Devlugt, who switched her registration in New Jersey from Democrat to Republican in order to vote for Mr. Paul in the primary, said she was never going back. “Kerry messed that up for the Democrats,” she said, blaming the Massachusetts senator for his 2004 defeat. “He can’t prove he didn’t throw the election to Bush.”

    I guess if you’re convinced someone polling at 4% in the Republican party can win the Republican nod for ’08, it’s just as easy to believe that effete Massachusetts snob John Kerry would entertain for even a moment giving up what he thought what was his coronation. It’s my considered opinion that all of these “converts” from the Democrats are just window-dressing. They defect from the Democrats to make Paul appear as if he can is attractive to “independents” – but if anyone thinks that these “cross-overs” will vote for Paul in November, you’re only kidding yourself. 

    “I look at some of these people, and I say to myself, ‘Yeah, it’s weird’ or whatever — I just think finally there may be a trend in this country where people are fed up with what they’re hearing,” [Tom Levins] said. “There’s no sheep here, there’s wolves here, questioning our nation’s government.”

    No sheep? With all of the irrational rhetoric that you have to swallow in order to think Ron Paul is a viable candidate, it really does take a herd of sheep. A really weird herd of sheep who don’t understand the process. Kinda like that weird herd of sheep that put Congress in Democrat hands last November thinking that Democrats could end the war in Iraq. Or impeach the President with no evidence.

  • Lazy Sunday Links

    I’m fighting off a cold or something and I’m not thinking straight so I’m going to let other people do my thinking for me today;

    Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs illustrates that 60s hippies never die in “You went there to kill children, you’re a baby killer”

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express tracks the money that links Murtha and the Haditha investigation here and here.

    Beth of Blue Star Chronicles’ son is still in Baghdad and Sergeant Grumpy just got there recently and is already dealing deadly blows to our enemie’s efforts.

    Michele Malkin has the admission (with audio) from Democrats that S-CHIP is the backdoor way t get universal healthcare past America while we blink.

    Gateway Pundit has a threatening and demeaning letter from Amahdinajad to M. Sarkozy.

    Wild Thing at PC Free Zone has the story on OPEC’s fear of a devalued dollar – they thought the camera was off. Speaking of oil, Junkyard Blog’s SeeDubya writes that Citgo is now funneling oil money to Chavez’ social programs.

    Crotchety Old Bastard answers his email for ANSWER.

    Babalu Blog’s Alberto de la Cruz reports on Chavez’ toe-dipping into extra-Venezuelan military operations.

    I’ll be back later if I can shake this thing.

  • Veteran victims; the Left’s latest absurdity

    This week, the week of Veterans’ Day, we’ve been pummelled with the media’s latest attack on the United States. CBS claims that the suicide rate among veterans is above the rate of Americans in general, disregarding that veterans are young and male and so their rate matches that of their peers. (Refuted here by Say Anything and Aviation Week) Is it a tragedy? Yes it most certainly is, but it’s not Bush’s fault – it’s not the VA’s fault. It’s more the fault of our culture (looking at you, CBS).

    Associated Press claims that soldiers are deserting at higher rates than ever before (well, since Vietnam). The New York Times reports that a quarter of homeless peple were veterans at some point in 2006;

    Recent surveys have painted an appalling picture. More than 300,000 of the nation’s 24 million veterans were homeless at some point during 2006, and while only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, aid groups are bracing themselves for a tsunamilike upsurge in coming years.

    Sure aid groups are bracing – they have a financial interest in inflated numbers – in fact if you scroll down to the bottom of the NYT story, you’ll see where they had corrected their 300k from a 500k number because they were in such a rush to get the story out on Veterans Day they didn’t have time to check the methodology of their polls.

    While “only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless”, New York Times sees a great way to turn public opinion against Republicans – yet again.

    Now I’m not calling the NEw York Times liars, but I’ll tell you - quite a few “veterans” I’ve met couldn’t tell the difference between an M16 and SOS. DC is lousy with phony vets – I’ve busted several out in my travels around the city. And none of them pretend to be cooks or clerks – they’re all SEALs and Rangers. In fact, I’m in the process of busting out a guy who made the mistake of pretending to be in the 1st Battalion Rangers at the same time I was there back in the days of woolen longjohns.

    I watched some national news program back in 1992, during the presidential campaign where a correspondent was interviewing a supposed Gulf War veteran who was homeless. The correspondent asked the man when he had been in the Gulf and the man replied that he’d been there since “May”. Now either the guy was there three months before Hussein invaded Kuwait, or he was there two months after the war had ended. But the interviewer continued with the piece and didn’t bat an eye.

    I’ll never forget that I ran into a “homeless vet” in Syracuse near my office there. He was bumming money from me by telling me he was a veteran. I told him that I’m a veteran, too. His immediate response was “Why are you wearing that suit”? As if I didn’t fit the mold of a veteran because I had a job and wore a suit.

    I’ve been in touch with many of my troops since I left the Army and as far as I can tell, they’re all doing great. But the left and the media want to portray us as mental cases boiling under our peaceful facade. Honestly, I am boiling underneath my (reasonably) peaceful facade – at the Left.

    Dean Barnett at The Weekly Standard, in his piece (dated 11-26) The Last Talking Point of the Left; the vet-as-victim, told of an email exchange he had with National Guard colonel;

    I recently exchanged emails with a colonel in the California National Guard–an attorney when not on active duty–about Bruce Spring-steen’s new song “Gypsy Biker.” The song portrays Iraq war veterans as gullible dupes who shed their blood while “the speculators made their money,” and the colonel wrote;

    It’s this portrayal of vets as burnt-out losers with nowhere to go but out on the open road that gets me. I was in court today, a vet, arguing a million-dollar case, in front of a judge who was also a vet. Vets aren’t burned out losers–we’re leaders. For every vet with problems–and they certainly exist, though I would guess in percentages far below that of the comparable civilian population–there are dozens of vets out there building businesses, raising families, and leading communities. Many give up weekends and vacations to stay in the Guard and Reserve. But I guess those guys aren’t cool enough or useful enough. 

    The stereotypical vet is the burned-out homeless guy with a torn old green field jacket. I say it should be the dad dropping his little girl off at preschool before he goes to the business he built from nothing while fielding phone calls from his Guard unit’s full-time staff and driving a car with a trunk full of military gear so that, when the next earthquake or riot hits, he can go out and protect his community–again.

    But the Left makes it’s points with the public by making the norm less normal – and veterans always get the shitty end of the stick. 

  • Washington Post; nonpartisan my pink butt

    So the House passed the same stupid defense spending bill that was vetoed by the President and sent it to the Senate AGAIN. The Washington Post didn’t bother to post the story on it’s website until nearly noon today and they entitled the piece “Senate GOP Blocks $50B War Funding Package” (Ed. Note: They changed it last night to; “Funding Bill for Iraq War Falls Short in Senate Vote”) pushing the culpability for the failure of funding off on Republicans;

    By Shailagh Murray
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, November 16, 2007; 11:44 AM

    Senate Republicans blocked the latest Democratic effort to end the Iraq war, rejecting a $50 billion funding package that would require President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

    The 53-45 vote fell seven short of the 60 votes needed for the measure to clear Republican procedural hurdles.

    But wait – what’s this:

    A GOP alternative, which would have provided $70 billion with no strings attached, failed 45-53, or 15 votes short of the 60-vote threshold.

    Oh, so the story’s title could have been “Democrat Caucus Blocks $70B War Funding Package” just as easily – or even “Senate Fails to Fund War”, but neither of those would fit the WaPo’s editorial policy.

    In another Washington Post story, Pelosi blames Congress’ low approval ratings on the Senate;

    In an interview at the U.S. Capitol, Pelosi said the Democratic takeover of Congress had raised expectations on action to end the conflict in Iraq, and that the Senate’s initial willingness to tackle immigration reform followed by its failure to do so left the American public disappointed in Congress.

    The House on Wednesday night passed spending legislation that sought to tie funding for the Iraq war to hard deadlines for beginning troop withdrawals, a proposal that has little hope of passage in the Senate.

    “People thought it was a problem that could be solved and when it didn’t happen I think it was a big disappointment,” she said. “Usually those low numbers relate to expectations and there were high expectations” on both Iraq and immigration.

    Maybe Congress’ low approval ratings are because Democrats made promises they never intended to keep. They need the war to win next year – all they have to do is keep sending legislation they know will be vetoed to play to the whacky wing of the Left. Don’t believe me? Let’s go back to the first WaPo story;

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said he may bring the Democratic bill back to the floor in December, but he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have asserted that Bush would not receive more war funding this year unless the president accepts Democratic withdrawal terms.

    Why would they continue to send legislation that was dead on arrival if they intended to end the war? And Washington Post carries their water for them.

  • Where’s the war? (UPDATED)

    Reading the usual newspapers and wire services this morning, I was surprised to find that there’s no mention of the war in either Iraq or Afghanistan. D’ya think we’re weary of the war and that’s why the Washington Post doesn’t even have it’s usual link to the US casualties on the front webpage? Nope, I don’t think that’s the reason at all. The war is beginning to go the way it should have gone four years ago. But that doesn’t stop Democrats from yapping. From the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller and Sean Lengell;

    Top Democrats yesterday rejected reports of U.S. military progress in Iraq, saying victory remains “out of reach” as long as political divisions roil Baghdad.

    “It’s not getting better; it’s getting worse,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “The goal remains out of reach.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said the reduced violence in Iraq wasn’t enough to win her support for the mission.

    “Certainly any time our military is engaged in military action, we want the best possible outcome for them, and they have produced that,” she said. “But their sacrifice and their courage has not been met by any action on the part of the Iraqi government.”

    Pelosi is talking through her ass, by the way. If they’d wanted “the best possible outcome” for the troops, they would have shut their stupid mouths four years ago until the job was done – then they can yap to their hearts’ content.

    So what’s it take to convince the Democrats that the war is being won? Yesterday the Iraqis took up one of their most controversial issues, the inclusion of former Ba’athists in the political process – the equivalent of Germans letting the former Nazis back into their process.

    From the Times article;

    Sen. Joe Lieberman, a hawkish Connecticut independent, said the war critics “remain emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat, even as facts on the ground show that we are advancing and winning.”

    They’re not “emotionally invested”, Joe, they’re politically invested in defeat. They have no emotions beyond their fear of being shown to be fools by Republicans.

    “Democrats can’t acknowledge the fact that our troops are winning the war against al Qaeda in Iraq without admitting that they’ve been dead wrong on the biggest national challenge of our generation at the same time,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

    “Had Republicans not stood their ground and prevented Democrats from forcing a retreat — on numerous occasions, especially in the early months of the year — who knows how firmly entrenched al Qaeda in Iraq would be today and what kind of strikes they’d be planning,” he said. “It’s a scary thought that could have been a reality.”

    Make that “most Republicans” – some greasy little cowards scrambling for that “maverick” label, cough-Hagel-cough, capitulated to the Left for purely political reasons.

    The Democrats want to encourage massive US casualties in the middle east, they want to encourage Iranian and al Qaeda strikes against the US – then they can use them in the 2008 campaign. Why else would Pelosi, et al. visit Iran’s poodle, Syria? To make the Arabs think we’re a bunch of cowards and fools – to insure them that no matter what they do to us or our allies, we’ll just turn the other cheek for them.

    Why else would Harry Reid continue to say that the war is lost, that surge wasn’t working even before it started? Because they’re a bunch of traitorous cowards who’ve bet their careers against the United States ever being successful at anything. They keep their jobs as long as they can convince voters that our revolution was a fool’s errand, as long as they can convince voters that we’re all failures.

    America used to be about winning. Fausta lists the 19 terrorist attacks against the US that have been thwarted since 9-11-2001. Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard says, “The Democrats may spend their days paddling up and down denial, but the reality is that trying to lose in Iraq is not a good strategy for rebuilding America’s foreign relations.” Chickenhawk Express quotes Harry Reid’s latest trip down denial;

    Take for instance, Harry Reid’s comments today about the war in Iraq…

    “Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq,” said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid. “The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago,” Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war “It is not getting better, it is getting worse,” he said.

    Makes ya wonder, doesn’t it? Now contrast Reid’s words with these words from Michael Yon, someone actually on the ground in Iraq (h/t Wake Up, America);

    I can’t remember my last shootout: it’s been months. The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it’s time to come home. And the Christians are saying it’s time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.

    Doesn’t sound like they’re talking about the same war, or even the same country, does it?

    Perhaps the media quit reporting on the war because they can’t get it right. Confederate Yankee reprints a letter that an Army LTC wrote to the Guardian to straighten out one of their reporters.

    UPDATED: The Senate failed to pass the bloated, same old stupid Democrat trick of trying to set a withdrawal date for Iraq while holding the troops hostage with defense spending – the same stupid political ploy that’s failed four times this year (link to AP/Yahoo story);

    Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

    Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was the lone Democrat opposing it because he said it did not go far enough to end the war.

    The Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached failed by a vote of 45-53, which was 15 short of the number needed to go forward.

    Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send President Bush a bill this year.

    Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats’ conflict with the White House on the war.

    In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can use some of its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.

    “The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

    So, the party that claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility won’t pass a defense bill in the time of war. And blithering buffoon Lil’ Chuckie Schumer – the king of free lunches – doesn’t give a tiny rat’s ass about funding the troops as long as he can run over Congressional aides to get to the cameras and say “the days of a free lunch are over” to get his stupid goofy mug on TV.

    If you stupid ass Democrats send this incompetent bunch of boobs back next year, you deserve everything they won’t give you. More on the Senate at Crotchety Old Bastard,  Michele Malkin, Blackfive and Gateway Pundit.