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

Category: Politics

  • Spy funds to be spent on manbearpig research

    I remember recently that Democrats were campaigning on the fact that we had faulty intelligence on Iraq which is why they were mislead into voting for the use of force in Iraq. Now, according to Christina Bellantoni of the Washington Times, Democrats want to divert intelligence funding into climate change research;

    Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats’ plans to divert “scarce” intelligence funds to study global warming.
        The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
        “Our job is to steal secrets,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
        “There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this,” he told The Washington Times. “There’s no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats.”

    With the growing influence of radical Islam, the proliferation of weapons worldwide, does it make any sense to spend intelligence funds to analyze the effect of a degree of temperature change? It seems to me that since the immediate threat are large bands of global thugs running around with bombs strapped to their undernourished toros we should probably do something about that for the time being. But what do I know – I don’t depend on wealthy contributors and PACs for my livelihood. 

    Update: Reading the WashTimes story gave American Thinker’s Clarice Feldman nightmares.

  • Be. Know. Do.

    The United States is not a democracy – we are a representative republic. If we were a democracy, our days would be filled with voting on various issues – everyday would see a new round of referendum votes between reading about the issues of the day. Instead, we elect representatives to keep up on legislation and do our voting for us and make our laws.

    We also elect a leader of our government to execute our laws. So every two years we have a voice in who we want to write and choose our laws, and every four years we choose a leader to execute those laws. That’s about the only real voice we have in our government. In between those two, four and six year intervals, the government is on autopilot – our autopilot controls are in the Constitution. The Constitution keeps those electees on track and protects us from them.

    Pretty easy to understand isn’t it? But it ain’t happening these days. The whole key is that we elect a leader – but too many of our two dozen Presidential candidates on both sides don’t understand the concept of leadership. They stick their fingers in the air, check the wind direction and charge off in the direction of the prevalent breeze. And that’s the real reason American stature has suffered over the last few decades.

    In the Army, we all learned basic leadership from the Army Regulation 6-22 (AR 6-22), which was built around the simple phrase “Be. Know. Do.” which the 6-22 describes like this;

    Army leadership begins with what the leader must BE, the values and attributes that shape a leader’s character. Your skills are those things you KNOW how to do, your competence in everything from the technical side of your job to the people skills a leader requires. But character and knowledge while absolutely necessary are not enough. You cannot be effective, you cannot be a leader, until you apply what you know, until you act and DO what you must.

    Get that? Can you apply that simple concept to any of the current crop of Presidential-wannbes? More than likely not. Too many want to BE whatever they think the majority of the voters want them to be, not themselves. They only want to KNOW what people think are important, and they only want to DO what the majority of people want them to do.

    Lyndon Johnson started his presidency as a leader – he decided that we had to roll back communism and he decided to begin roll it back in Vietnam. But then the politician in him took over and when the war became unpopular, he decided that he was a political liability to his party and chose not to run in the ’68 election – admitting that defeat was more politically expedient than actually fighting the communists and turning back the lesion on mankind. Johnson fell back on his experience as a politician making decisons based on the well-being of his party instead of the well-being of his country.

    Ronald Reagan was a leader. He decided to roll back communism and stuck to his guns for the entire eight years of his term – despite his detractors. The whole world called him a cowboy, protesters worldwide make caricatures of him and called him a jackbooted Nazi. The press called him “Rambo” and a drooling idiot, but despite all of the pressure against him, President kept doing what he thought was right. He embodied the values he wanted the world to see in our nation, he knew the issues, he knew the enemy, he knew our strengths and weaknesses, and he did what he knew had to be done – and kept doing it in the face of criticism. And he knew how to pick his fights – even fights with the people on his own side of the aisle.

    George W. Bush is a leader. He’s continued to carry the fight to the Islamists despite the massive criticism of him and his policies. He embodies our values, he’s a perfect representative of this country. He knows that our enemy won’t surrender, so he hasn’t surrendered. And he’s always done what’s best for the country despite the fact that only 30% of the people still support him. He’s doing the right thing as a leader with little regard what’s being said about him, or the party. He’s doing the right thing for the country. You may not agree with every decision he makes, but you pretty much know how he’s going to decide on any issue put before him – he’s consistent and dependable.

    Contrast that to Bill Clinton’s presidency; Clinton didn’t lead, he stuck his unclean finger in the air and said the things people wanted to hear. He was wildly popular (if you can believe the polls) but he accomplished nothing. By the end of his term, Al Gore was running on Clinton “accomplishments” that the administration had to be dragged towards by the Republicans. To this day, you can still hear Democrats talking about their “fiscal responsibility” and Clinton’s successful welfare reforms. Hell, he refused to sign two previous welfare reform bills, but finally was forced to sign before the 1996 and became the only campaign promise he kept.

    But, back to the present; look at the presidential wanna-bes. Hillary Clinton has decided that the best thing for her campaign is to call for rescinding the vote for force against Hussein – a political decision based on the cacophonous cry from the Left for Clinton to surrender to Islamists, not on our national security. That’s not what a leader would do. She is definitely not what I would call sterling as far as her character goes, either. Where were those FBI files all of those years?

    Rudy Giuliani is no different. His answer to the abortion question in the Republican debates the other night wasn’t the answer a leader would give. He came down firmly on both sides of the issues in one sentence – instead of making a clear statement that didn’t require an analyst to tell us what he meant. He gave a politician’s answer – not a leader’s answer. And someone who’d cheat on their wife while he was supposed to be doing the people’s business isn’t my idea of a leader, either. If he’d cheat on a woman to whom he’ made a solemn vow, what would make him keep his word to the People to whom he’s made a solemn vow?

    The last time we elected someone directly from Congress to the White House was Lyndon Johnson – a career politician who ended his career by throwing himself on his sword for purely political reasons. Since then, we’ve mostly elected governors who’ve had EXECUTIVE experience, not political experience. People who have experience making decisions, not people who’ve only cast votes. People who lead.

    The Army says leadership is;

    …influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.

    That’s how I’ll make my decision. Be. Know. Do. Politicians aren’t leaders.

  • I’m heading out

    The MilBlog Conference starts this afternoon so I’ll be off line for the next two days. In the interim, don’t forget to sign this petition;

     

  • Democrats discuss unringing the bell

    According to S.A.Miller in today’s Washington Times, Democrats are looking for another way to surrender to Islamofacist terrorism;

    “The 2002 authorization to use force has run its course,” said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
        He announced the planned legislation jointly with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat who serves alongside Mr. Byrd on the Armed Services Committee.
        “It is time — past time — to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives,” Mr. Byrd said on the Senate floor. “The president must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way.”

    I guess they figured that the President’s veto didn’t absolve them of their 2002 vote for the use of military force against Saddam Hussein like they planned – so they’re just going to unring that bell. 

    Why would they, the day after they pledged to work with the President after he vetoed their first Capitulation Proclamation, decide to take another run at the surrender route? Easy. They climbed in bed with Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org, the KosKids, and ignorant oafs like Eugene Robinson and they’ve staked their political futures on being anti-George Bush and because they’re tied to the uneducated, emotion-driven drama queens of the Left and there’s no room for compromise with those emotional, intellectually-vacant freaks.

       “There is nothing off the table — including timetables. Nothing,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
        His words were directed at peace activists who have unleashed their wrath against Democratic leaders in Congress for indicating that they will back down from Mr. Bush and nix a troop-pullout timetable from the war funding bill.
        “If they prove unable to stand up and do the job they were elected to do, there is no telling what will happen next [election] time,” said Dana Balicki, national organizer for Code Pink, a feminist group opposing the war in Iraq.
        “It’s about what you do, not what you say,” she said. “We will hold them accountable.”
        Cindy Sheehan, the activist who famously picketed the president at his Texas ranch, says her least favorite politician now is Mrs. Clinton because of her “unflinching support of George Bush’s war.”

    What’s that old saw about laying down with dogs? It’s all about holding on to their political cash now – having money for the 2008 election is more impoartant than our National Security.

    Meanwhile, over in the House, they’ve settled in to their own set of schemes, according to Anne Flaherty of AP;

    In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money after that point, but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

    Two months of funding at a time. Good job, nimrods. How brave of you all. And since the terrorists know know they only have to wait a couple of months, or they only have to fight a couple of months and sacrifice a few thousands of their jihadists to make it appear as if they’re stronger than they are, failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Anyone remember Tet of ’68? The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out – their losses were so bad that they ceased being an effective fighting force for the remainder of the war in Vietnam. But because they’d fought so tenaciously, the media thought they still had fight left in them and declared the war unwinnable – a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

    Elsewhere on the web, Captain’s Quarters’ Ed Morrissey writes about Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari’s plea in the Washington Post that we (Americans) not abandon Iraqis to the terrorists there. Roy Robison, on the American Thinker, accuses the Democrats of going “cowboy”.

  • Me? I’ll vote for any Republican.

    I’ve heard, and read, so many Republicans complain about certain members of the Republican field of candidates and declare “I wouldn’t vote for that guy under any circumstances!” Well, I “feel” the same way sometimes. There are none of the top three or four that excite me to action. But the alternative is frightening.

    Reading the websites of the Democrat candidates is like looking through a tear in time and space.

    Apparently Barack Obama has been busy during his two years as a Senator;

    Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

    I’m sure the folks in Darfur are grateful that Obama has stopped the genocide being inflicted on their population. I suppose they all live on peaceful cul de sacs now that the genocide has ended. And I suppose Obama personally went to Libya and disarmed Gaddafi – what a brave soul.

    As far on the war against terror goes, Obama, apparently had intelligence that no one in the federal government had;

    In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    How did that youngster know about the status of Hussein’s weapons when the entire world thought he had weapons? And President Bush said the same thing about the length of time and the cost, didn’t he?

    Energy? Obama is a “leader”;

    Senator Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence.

    Does that mean that he’s for drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf or opening the reserves in Alaska? Of course not;

    By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal.

    Yep, that’s the ticket – half-assed, feel good, “progressive” non-solutions. A fine candidate , indeed.

    But, try to find out what Hillary Clinton’s issues are. You have to slog through through her biography to find…nothing;

    Hillary has not wavered in her work to expand quality affordable health care to more Americans…

    Her strong advocacy for children continues in the Senate…

    Hillary has been a powerful advocate for women in the Senate…

    Hillary is strongly committed to making sure that every American has the right to vote in fair, accessible, and credible elections….

    Nothing disagreeable there. So she’s a bland candidate with nothing to offer Americans except bland platitudes – and don’t forget to sign up to have a Hillary Party in your home or hand over some cash – these webs sites ain’t free ya know.

    And my personal favorite, John Edwards – I’d vote for him in a primary because he’s so fricken transparent in his hypocrisy.

    On his web site Edwards claims he wants to end our dependence on foreign oil – no, not by drilling our own oil, by;

    …investing in clean, renewable energies like wind, solar, and biofuels to create a new energy economy, developing a new generation of efficient cars and trucks, and putting new energy-saving technologies to work in buildings, transportation, and industry.

    Of course if we don’t drill our own oil, we’ll still be buying foreign oil for those “efficient cars and trucks”, won’t we? But not to worry, Edwards will be leading us to energy independence because his mega-mansion and his campaign are “energy neutral“. Apparently just by declaring that in public makes it so.

    But that ain’t all! Edwards is going to eliminate poverty;

    Every day, 37 million Americans wake in poverty.

    Yeah, they wake up about noon, roll over and turn on “The View” and grab the “Cheetos” bag next to the bed from the night before. Do any of these 37 million people have families that can start haranguing them about looking for work? Nope, but they’ve got John Edwards;

    We can reach that goal by creating and rewarding work, strengthening families, helping workers save and get ahead, transforming our schools, expanding access to college, breaking up areas of concentrated poverty, reaching overlooked rural areas, and expecting people to help themselves by working whenever they are able.

    It’s just that simple – just expect people to do better, and they will. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?

    And on the overarching issue of our time, our war against terrorism? Well, Edwards wants to restore our moral leadership in the world. How you ask? By surrendering and pulling our troops out of the war;

    …immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq, with the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 12-18 months — allowing the Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for rebuilding their own country. It also means working to restore our legitimacy by leading on the great challenges before us like the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the genocide in Darfur, extreme poverty, and living up to our ideals in the fight against terrorism.

    I guess Edwards didn’t hear that Obama already ended genocide in Darfur.

    I’ll grant that none of the Republicans look particularly vote-worthy, but compared to what’s on the other side, they look like gems to me. For the best liveblogging of the Republican debate last night, see Sister Toldjah, for the best wrap-up see Rick Moran at the Rightwing Nuthouse.

  • Reality sets in for Dems

    So after a month of posturing and daring the President to veto their pork-laden Capitulation Proclamation, Democrats realized that they can’t even get the weakest version of their surrender passed. According to the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller and Jon Ward;

    The Democrat-led House yesterday failed to override President Bush’s veto of an emergency war-funding bill with a troop-withdrawal timetable for Iraq, after House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Congress should quickly pass a new version without a pullout plan.
        The attempt to reverse Mr. Bush’s veto failed in a 222-203 vote, more than 60 votes short of the needed two-thirds majority, which also would have had to have been mustered in the Senate.

    So now they have to get down to business and craft something the President will sign – like they should have been doing instead of making empty political statements and trying to pass the buck to the President for their own votes back in 2002. The Washington Post reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the darling of terrorists everywhere, was still feeling froggy;

    “We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”

    Pretty weak, though. The Republicans are committed to ending this war, too, Blinky – Republicans, mostly, want to end it so we don’t have to go back in another decade, as opposed to Democrats who want to end for a year or so and then blame the Republicans when it flares up again – just like they used the first Gulf War and it’s untimely end against Republicans throughout the 90s. 

    Bush said he is “confident that we can reach agreement,” and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties.

    Sure they can reach an agreement – the Democrats figured out that Republicans and real Americans aren’t completely taken in by their over-heated rhetoric. And just to be clear, there were Democrats who voted against overriding the veto, too. From Politico;

    Seven Democrats broke ranks and voted with the GOP: Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Jim Matheson of Utah, Michael R. McNulty of New York and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.

    Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), a leading war critic and Democratic presidential candidate, voted “present.”

    Brave little Denny Kucinich couldn’t bring himself to vote for the failed bill. Truly the future firt Secretary of Peace.

    I’ve said time and again, the Democrats don’t control this country – except their own tiny, closed minds. They call a coupla seat victory in midterm elections a mandate to end the war, but if that were true, Republicans would be feeling pressure from the constituency – but they’re not. Well, mostly. from the Washington Times piece;

    “This bill is not the last word,” said the Maryland Democrat, who explained that the strategy to deal with the impasse is being developed. He said he expects the House to pass a new war-funding bill within two weeks, leaving the Senate two weeks to approve it before Congress takes a weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of May.
        “We’re not going to leave our troops there in harm’s way at the point of the spear without the resources they need to achieve success,” he said, signaling that the leadership will fund the troops first and oppose the war later.

    That’s where the American voters are – think Old Finger-in-the-wind Hoyer would’ve made such a statement if he hadn’t done his research about where the majority of Americans stand? Nope. No way. From the Post’s story;

    House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq — such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias — to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

    Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday’s White House meeting, participants said. “I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,” said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. “We didn’t go into any kind of detail,” Durbin said.

    See, that’s what they should have been doing for more than a month now instead of running to a microphone and reminding us that they have a slim majority of the seats in Congress and whining that the President isn’t paying attention to their polling data. Apparently, Americans weren’t paying attention their polling data either.

  • Pelosi’s a hit – with Syrians

    Betsy Pisik writes in the Washington Times about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s new constituency – in Syria;

       The California Democrat warmed Syrian hearts with her trip last month to Damascus, an event that people still share with visiting Americans as conversational currency.
        “Nancy Pelosi is good, yes?” asked a Damascus laborer who found himself sitting next to an American at a greasy gyro stand this week. “Nancy Pelosi, good American?”

    No, my friend, she’s not a good American. She’s a good Democrat which means, how you say, she talks a good game but she’s an empty suit. For example she made peace overtures to Syria from Israel which were lies and unsolicited. She did it to make nice with your slick-ass President and to embarrass ours as pointed out in this Washington Post editorial;

     Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

    Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

    She not only took it upon herself to presume to speak for the American people, she also presented herself as a messenger of the Israeli government. If the Syrians like that, they don’t deserve a democracy.

    But back to the Pisik/WashTimes article;

        “She was enormously popular here, a hero,” said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions.” 

      Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi’s trip “bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won’t work.”

    See? By concessions, Syrians mean stopping Hezbollah attacks on Israel and infiltrating support to the anti-government forces in Iraq. In other words, Syrians think Pelosi gave them permission to continue to support terrorists. Pelosi is not a good American. 

    Mrs. Pelosi said she raised substantive issues with Syrian leaders, urging them to stop insurgents from entering Iraq, help win the release of Israeli soldiers thought to be held captive by Lebanese and Palestinian militias, and end Syria’s support for terrorist groups. 

    I’m pretty sure that if Pelosi did bring up those issues in her “private” meeting with Bashur, it was in such convoluted double-speak popular with elitist diplomats that only confuses the intended recipient.

    But this Iraqi woman kind of sums it all up;

      “She is a different face of America, but she does not have ideas, any solutions,” the Iraqi woman said. “I watch TV all day, and I know that only the faces change.” 

    I guess she fooled the Syrians, but the folks who have to bear the brunt of the results of her insolent posturing can see right through her.

     

  • Take THAT Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan

    I don’t usually post more article than commentary, but this story says it all.

    John Ward in the Washington Times writes about the pen President Bush used yesterday to veto the Democrats’ cobbled-together, pork-laden defense spending bill – otherwise known as the Capitulation Proclamation; 

        The pen was a gift from the father of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq, who asked Mr. Bush last month to use it when he vetoed a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
        Robert Derga, of Uniontown, Ohio, gave Mr. Bush the pen after an April 16 speech by the president at the White House.
        Mr. Bush invited a number of “Gold Star Families” — families who have lost a U.S. military member in Iraq — to the speech, and met with them afterwards in the Oval Office.
    * * * * *

     “I looked the president square in the eye,” Mr. Derga said. “I looked at him and said, ‘Mr. President, if this Iraq supplemental comes down to a veto I want you to use my pen to do it.’”
        Mr. Bush “kind of looked at me funny for a moment and then said, ‘Absolutely,’ and then handed the pen to his assistant,” Mr. Derga said.
        “He assured me he would use it,” Mr. Derga said.
    * * * * *

      Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Derga was shutting off his computer at work, around 5:30, when he received a call from Jared Weinstein, Mr. Bush’s personal aide.
        Mr. Weinstein was calling “to tell me that the president had signed the veto with my pen.”
        “They wanted to again give their heartfelt condolences on our loss of Dustin,” Mr. Derga said. “I was pretty blown away is one way of putting it. I couldn’t believe he actually did it.”

    I thought it was more than appropriate. Please read the rest of the story for more background.

    UPDATE: The Washington Post is running the same story in an Anne Flaherty-written AP story – well sorta. You have to plow through a page-and-a-half of anti-Bush blather until you reach a two-paragraph blurb followed by;

    Minutes after Bush vetoed the bill, an anti-war demonstrator stood outside the White House with a bullhorn: “How many more must die? How many more must die?”

    Then another page-and-a-half of anti-Bush blather. But, there’s no bias in the media.