Just a few stories your PYY team (of one) is currently following:
Merkel Stands Firm Against Terrorists from Der Spiegel.
This is the first test of her leadership against those those that seek to use blackmail as a tactic. How she responds to it will set the tone for the rest of her tenure. But, you can look for the left in Germany to exploit her hard stand for political gain.
Western White Woman Was Suicide Bomber by the Times Online.
Dumb broad, yes. But is this something to look forward to, both here and abroad? (No pun intended) (Well, maybe a little)
Pelosi Embraces Murtha's Proposal from the AP, via My Way.
Here is the text of her remarks if you have the stomach for it.
What could I possibly say about this that hasn't already been said?
Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and a whole host of others have flip-flopped all the way and now is no different. They know that the left is the driving force in their party and they have to say anything negative to remain in favor with the Michael Moores, George Soroses, and others (that have hijacked the Democratic Party) that contribute huge sums of money.
The Party of FDR and JFK has become the party of Deaniacs.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Indianapolis Colts are 11-0. Is This The Team?
Note - Taking a break from the madness for just a moment.
Whenever a team gets this far in an NFL season, has won eleven straight, and has done it in such a versatile fashion; the 72 Dolphins start getting mentioned with more and more frequency and they get a little nervous in the process. They get more requests for interviews and get more opportunities to re-live the one thing that was so phenomenal in professional football. I say it was so phenomenal, because I have only seen it happen once in my lifetime. And, it was something that I thought would never happen again, especially when the regular season schedule was increased to 16 games.
But after seeing the Colts dispose of some quality opponents in quality fashion, it has become apparent that this team has become, the team to beat this year. They are the "king of the hill" right now and every team that plays them from now until they lose (IF they lose), will be gunning for them like it's a championship game. Losing teams would love nothing more than to say they were (the) one team that beat the Colts this year and would certainly use it as a motivating tool for next season; winning teams would want to send a message to them (and the rest of the league), as a psychological ploy to intimidate the opposition for when the playoffs get underway.
It is often said and has many times been proven in the past that having an outstanding, high-powered defense with an efficient offense (one that makes the plays they need to, when they need to, nothing flashy) wins Super Bowls. But the Colts have an outstanding, high-powered offense with an efficient defense (one that bends but does not break, gives up yards but not points). All players are stepping up in games and playing extremely well as a functional team unit, on both sides of the ball.
But it is the offense that makes this team so special. They have so many viable weapons.
In the early days of football and right up until the 1980s, football was primarily a running game. Teams set up the pass with the running game, after the run was well-established. If a team started doing a lot of passing, it was usually because they were behind and desperate. But since Bill Walsh revolutionized the game with the advent of the short pass as a game plan (to take the place of multiple running plays), football has been more of a balanced attack. And, every now and then, there comes a quarterback that has intelligence, a solid understanding of NFL defenses, as well as the talent, to make big passing plays and set the run up with the pass, when the game plan calls for it.
That guy today, is Peyton Manning. He is the nucleus, the leader, but he has a star-studded ensemble surrounding him and taking a lot pressure off of him. Without him, it's just another team that will probably get to the playoffs and get ousted in the first or second round. But without them, he is just another Archie Manning. He is a great quarterback that is damned good (and fun to watch), but one who watches the playoffs on television because he has no real talent, to play with. In essence, he would be his father.
But lucky for Colts fans, he has a stellar supporting cast.
Let's look at the running game. Edge is the real deal. He has speed and power. And he has plenty of both. He squares his shoulders up when he runs and keeps his legs moving until the whistle blows. Often he is good for 3-4 extra yards after he is hit. Behind him on the bench is the return specialist Dominick Rhodes and fullback James Mungro. When Edge is taking a breather after some intense action, either guy can come in for a couple of plays and make plays, when they need them. Backup running back is by committee.
As for the passing game, we all know about Manning. But who are his receivers? Marvin Harrison we all know and those of us that are into the NFL with any serious interest know Reggie Wayne, too. But Manning has tight end Dallas Clark, who can act as a good receiver or block like a good tight end. Brandon Stokley is another receiver that can certainly get open, especially when the opposing secondary doubles on Wayne and/or Harrison. Troy Walters, Aaron Moorehead are more than adequate third and fourth stringers at receiver, and this kid Bryan Fletcher has caught a couple of TD passes, as a back-up to Clark at tight end. The receiving corps is the deepest in the league.
Field goals are almost always a given with Vanderjagt and punter Hunter Smith is averaging 43.7 yards per punt, this year. Their only weakness is on kickoffs.
Defense is much improved this year. The addition of defensive tackle Corey Simon has made it damned near impossible to run up the middle and defensive end Dwight Freeney is relentless, as can be his counterpart, Robert Mathis. Both can sack the quarterback and both can stop the run. The secondary is a team effort that can create havoc to anyone's passing game, except Carson Palmer's. (Cincinnati will be another team like the Colts, when they mature.)
So, if you ask me whether I think this team has the ability to run the table, I'd have to say yes. It's always hard to say whether a team will or won't, but they certainly have the stuff to do it. They are in control of their own destiny, at this point in the season. They have a couple of tough ones yet to play, San Diego and Seattle. But, SD is inconsistent and Seattle hasn't had a tough enough schedule, to impress me just yet. And Jacksonville, the one team that I picked to beat the Colts in two weeks (in Jacksonville), has just been dealt a huge blow, with the injury of quarterback Brian Leftwich (who is the guts of that team). That leaves Tennessee and Arizona. Neither of those two has nearly enough horses to handle the Colts, unless the Colts play their reserves, for 60 minutes.
And so, the drama is on. The 72 Dolphins are begininng to sweat it (and rightfully so). But there is a lot of football left and this is the NFL; where any team can beat any team, on any given day. That much you can count on.
Whenever a team gets this far in an NFL season, has won eleven straight, and has done it in such a versatile fashion; the 72 Dolphins start getting mentioned with more and more frequency and they get a little nervous in the process. They get more requests for interviews and get more opportunities to re-live the one thing that was so phenomenal in professional football. I say it was so phenomenal, because I have only seen it happen once in my lifetime. And, it was something that I thought would never happen again, especially when the regular season schedule was increased to 16 games.
But after seeing the Colts dispose of some quality opponents in quality fashion, it has become apparent that this team has become, the team to beat this year. They are the "king of the hill" right now and every team that plays them from now until they lose (IF they lose), will be gunning for them like it's a championship game. Losing teams would love nothing more than to say they were (the) one team that beat the Colts this year and would certainly use it as a motivating tool for next season; winning teams would want to send a message to them (and the rest of the league), as a psychological ploy to intimidate the opposition for when the playoffs get underway.
It is often said and has many times been proven in the past that having an outstanding, high-powered defense with an efficient offense (one that makes the plays they need to, when they need to, nothing flashy) wins Super Bowls. But the Colts have an outstanding, high-powered offense with an efficient defense (one that bends but does not break, gives up yards but not points). All players are stepping up in games and playing extremely well as a functional team unit, on both sides of the ball.
But it is the offense that makes this team so special. They have so many viable weapons.
In the early days of football and right up until the 1980s, football was primarily a running game. Teams set up the pass with the running game, after the run was well-established. If a team started doing a lot of passing, it was usually because they were behind and desperate. But since Bill Walsh revolutionized the game with the advent of the short pass as a game plan (to take the place of multiple running plays), football has been more of a balanced attack. And, every now and then, there comes a quarterback that has intelligence, a solid understanding of NFL defenses, as well as the talent, to make big passing plays and set the run up with the pass, when the game plan calls for it.
That guy today, is Peyton Manning. He is the nucleus, the leader, but he has a star-studded ensemble surrounding him and taking a lot pressure off of him. Without him, it's just another team that will probably get to the playoffs and get ousted in the first or second round. But without them, he is just another Archie Manning. He is a great quarterback that is damned good (and fun to watch), but one who watches the playoffs on television because he has no real talent, to play with. In essence, he would be his father.
But lucky for Colts fans, he has a stellar supporting cast.
Let's look at the running game. Edge is the real deal. He has speed and power. And he has plenty of both. He squares his shoulders up when he runs and keeps his legs moving until the whistle blows. Often he is good for 3-4 extra yards after he is hit. Behind him on the bench is the return specialist Dominick Rhodes and fullback James Mungro. When Edge is taking a breather after some intense action, either guy can come in for a couple of plays and make plays, when they need them. Backup running back is by committee.
As for the passing game, we all know about Manning. But who are his receivers? Marvin Harrison we all know and those of us that are into the NFL with any serious interest know Reggie Wayne, too. But Manning has tight end Dallas Clark, who can act as a good receiver or block like a good tight end. Brandon Stokley is another receiver that can certainly get open, especially when the opposing secondary doubles on Wayne and/or Harrison. Troy Walters, Aaron Moorehead are more than adequate third and fourth stringers at receiver, and this kid Bryan Fletcher has caught a couple of TD passes, as a back-up to Clark at tight end. The receiving corps is the deepest in the league.
Field goals are almost always a given with Vanderjagt and punter Hunter Smith is averaging 43.7 yards per punt, this year. Their only weakness is on kickoffs.
Defense is much improved this year. The addition of defensive tackle Corey Simon has made it damned near impossible to run up the middle and defensive end Dwight Freeney is relentless, as can be his counterpart, Robert Mathis. Both can sack the quarterback and both can stop the run. The secondary is a team effort that can create havoc to anyone's passing game, except Carson Palmer's. (Cincinnati will be another team like the Colts, when they mature.)
So, if you ask me whether I think this team has the ability to run the table, I'd have to say yes. It's always hard to say whether a team will or won't, but they certainly have the stuff to do it. They are in control of their own destiny, at this point in the season. They have a couple of tough ones yet to play, San Diego and Seattle. But, SD is inconsistent and Seattle hasn't had a tough enough schedule, to impress me just yet. And Jacksonville, the one team that I picked to beat the Colts in two weeks (in Jacksonville), has just been dealt a huge blow, with the injury of quarterback Brian Leftwich (who is the guts of that team). That leaves Tennessee and Arizona. Neither of those two has nearly enough horses to handle the Colts, unless the Colts play their reserves, for 60 minutes.
And so, the drama is on. The 72 Dolphins are begininng to sweat it (and rightfully so). But there is a lot of football left and this is the NFL; where any team can beat any team, on any given day. That much you can count on.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Kosovo Clamors For Independence
From the IHT comes this piece by an Albanian from Kosovo that believes, the autnomous region of Kosovo should be an independent and sovereign state. Ethnic Albanians now make their own rules and Serbs make theirs. Serbs, while still a minority, still make up a large segment of the population.
I have mixed feelings about this idea. It creates a delicate situation for a lot of reasons.
One prominent reason is, it is a conflict that is located squarely on the border, of both the Christian and Islamic worlds. It, like other areas of the world that have a border with a state that is run by Muslims or a significant amount of Muslims living within their border (in large blocs), has not been a particularly peaceful area to live in. Ask Thailand, there is an area that Muslims want to yank out from under those that practice the Buddhist faith. Almost the entire peninsula is Muslim. Rebels are fighting to carve it off into a Muslim-state and they are using terrorist tactics to do it. You can also ask Myanmar and the Phillipines, they suffer a similar plight.
Now comes this renewed call for Kosovo independence. Now comes more trouble in a region that had to be bombed to get one side to stop exterminating the other, in order to force them out. We, the United States of America (at the request of Europe), stopped it. But it did not solve the problems that will always plague a region, when there is a significant Muslim population that is restless and longs to implement some form of Islamic law, claiming the land as forever Muslim.
The questions now become:
Will this become another powder keg region, again? Will it re-emerge as a war torn region? If the Serbs stand firm on this and refuse to allow Kosovo to become an independent and sovereign state, will the jihadists take their causes back to the Balkans and fight for Muslim sovereignty, against Christians? Will Europe step up and solve their own issues, this time around? Or, will the U.S. once again be summoned to intervene, because Europe is weak and has sizable Muslim populations of its own to worry about?
If we allow them to do this again, they gain advantages over the U.S. in two areas.
One is, it helps keep the U.S. from strengthening and depletes its resources. They are afraid of us for some reason ( at least that I have never been able to figure out). Europe did not want to contribute to the cause of Iraqi freedom for lots of reasons, this was one of them. They knew that this conflict, along with Afghanistan, would further stretch our forces and cause us to spend military dollars doing it. Add to that another potential conflict to take the place of Iraq and Afghanistan, once we get out of them, and you can continue to force us to commit miltary force, with all of its costs attached.
The other area they gain the advantage if we do the dirty work is, they come out smelling like roses, while we look more like the bad guys. We do the work and we look like the imperialists, diverting anger towards us and not continental Europe, where more riots could break out at any given moment, over the least little thing.
This time around, it would better serve the people of these areas, if Europe would be more involved. Somewhere at sometime, somebody besides the U.S. is going to have to take a stand. At some point in time, the U.S. is going to have to stop fighting Europe's battles for them and force them to take responsibility for themselves.
As we watch the developments in this area closely over the coming months, it can reasonably be argued that now is that time.
I have mixed feelings about this idea. It creates a delicate situation for a lot of reasons.
One prominent reason is, it is a conflict that is located squarely on the border, of both the Christian and Islamic worlds. It, like other areas of the world that have a border with a state that is run by Muslims or a significant amount of Muslims living within their border (in large blocs), has not been a particularly peaceful area to live in. Ask Thailand, there is an area that Muslims want to yank out from under those that practice the Buddhist faith. Almost the entire peninsula is Muslim. Rebels are fighting to carve it off into a Muslim-state and they are using terrorist tactics to do it. You can also ask Myanmar and the Phillipines, they suffer a similar plight.
Now comes this renewed call for Kosovo independence. Now comes more trouble in a region that had to be bombed to get one side to stop exterminating the other, in order to force them out. We, the United States of America (at the request of Europe), stopped it. But it did not solve the problems that will always plague a region, when there is a significant Muslim population that is restless and longs to implement some form of Islamic law, claiming the land as forever Muslim.
The questions now become:
Will this become another powder keg region, again? Will it re-emerge as a war torn region? If the Serbs stand firm on this and refuse to allow Kosovo to become an independent and sovereign state, will the jihadists take their causes back to the Balkans and fight for Muslim sovereignty, against Christians? Will Europe step up and solve their own issues, this time around? Or, will the U.S. once again be summoned to intervene, because Europe is weak and has sizable Muslim populations of its own to worry about?
If we allow them to do this again, they gain advantages over the U.S. in two areas.
One is, it helps keep the U.S. from strengthening and depletes its resources. They are afraid of us for some reason ( at least that I have never been able to figure out). Europe did not want to contribute to the cause of Iraqi freedom for lots of reasons, this was one of them. They knew that this conflict, along with Afghanistan, would further stretch our forces and cause us to spend military dollars doing it. Add to that another potential conflict to take the place of Iraq and Afghanistan, once we get out of them, and you can continue to force us to commit miltary force, with all of its costs attached.
The other area they gain the advantage if we do the dirty work is, they come out smelling like roses, while we look more like the bad guys. We do the work and we look like the imperialists, diverting anger towards us and not continental Europe, where more riots could break out at any given moment, over the least little thing.
This time around, it would better serve the people of these areas, if Europe would be more involved. Somewhere at sometime, somebody besides the U.S. is going to have to take a stand. At some point in time, the U.S. is going to have to stop fighting Europe's battles for them and force them to take responsibility for themselves.
As we watch the developments in this area closely over the coming months, it can reasonably be argued that now is that time.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Former Saddam Officers Joining Iraqi Army
From the World Tribune comes this piece on the recent recruitment offer extended towards former officers that served under Saddam.
If you ask me, other than the top level of the upper echelon of officers, they should have kept the vast majority of them. This is one area I must be critical of the Administration. They dropped the ball on this one.
BAGHDAD — Officers who served in Saddam Hussein's military forces have been flocking to join the Iraq Army.
U.S. officials said that over the last month, thousands of Saddam officers have applied to join the Iraq Army. They said after a screening most of the applicants were accepted.
If you ask me, other than the top level of the upper echelon of officers, they should have kept the vast majority of them. This is one area I must be critical of the Administration. They dropped the ball on this one.
What A Difference A Party Makes
The link to One Marine's Words by Mona Charen was sent to me by Mustang of Social Sense. If you're reading PYY, you need to read him.
Here is an excerpt, worthy of some intelligent reflection:
Now, let's look at this a little.
It was okay with Europe (and other world leftists) when we bombed the hell out of the Balkans. Innocent people were killed then, too. They even bombed the Chinese consulate (or something) by mistake and got a free pass. And, agree with that action or not, the objective was to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, by Christians. (You'd think the jihadists and their leftist allies would remember that. But they don't.)
But the clincher is, Europe and the left begged for the U.S. to do something. They were powerless (as they often are) to solve the issue through diplomacy. Milosevic (sp?) wasn't bargaining, negotiations were failing, and Europe was clamoring for intervention. We did it, with very few protests and those that did occur were minimized by the MSM, if reported at all.
Today, they are on the opposite side of the spectrum. They work like hell to subvert every noble cause and effort. Which makes you wonder that if Clinton had been the one to go into Iraq, would the Cindy Sheehans even exist?
Here is an excerpt, worthy of some intelligent reflection:
I do know that since Vietnam, liberals have viewed every exercise of American military power (with the exception of those undertaken by Bill Clinton) as preludes to disaster.
Now, let's look at this a little.
It was okay with Europe (and other world leftists) when we bombed the hell out of the Balkans. Innocent people were killed then, too. They even bombed the Chinese consulate (or something) by mistake and got a free pass. And, agree with that action or not, the objective was to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, by Christians. (You'd think the jihadists and their leftist allies would remember that. But they don't.)
But the clincher is, Europe and the left begged for the U.S. to do something. They were powerless (as they often are) to solve the issue through diplomacy. Milosevic (sp?) wasn't bargaining, negotiations were failing, and Europe was clamoring for intervention. We did it, with very few protests and those that did occur were minimized by the MSM, if reported at all.
Today, they are on the opposite side of the spectrum. They work like hell to subvert every noble cause and effort. Which makes you wonder that if Clinton had been the one to go into Iraq, would the Cindy Sheehans even exist?
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving
I want to take a moment to wish everyone that reads Political Yen/Yang a happy and safe Thanksgiving. And please know that I appreciate your support and your comments, immensely.
We won't be having a huge crowd this year, just my wife, my mother-in-law, and myself. Some years we have put on a big spread and others not. I have spent Thanksgivings in messhalls, in Europe, in Hawaii, in restaurants, at home, and at others' homes. I have spent them with people I like and with those I don't. I have spent them alone.
But no matter what the circumstances have been, in any given year, I have ALWAYS had reason to be thankful. And this year is no different.
(I will really be thankful if Dallas can beat Denver, because I never have been a Bronco fan.)
ADDENDUM: I have gone on a speed blogging binge so if you are a lazy scroller, be sure to scroll down and check out the links I posted, last evening. Some are pretty darned funny.
We won't be having a huge crowd this year, just my wife, my mother-in-law, and myself. Some years we have put on a big spread and others not. I have spent Thanksgivings in messhalls, in Europe, in Hawaii, in restaurants, at home, and at others' homes. I have spent them with people I like and with those I don't. I have spent them alone.
But no matter what the circumstances have been, in any given year, I have ALWAYS had reason to be thankful. And this year is no different.
(I will really be thankful if Dallas can beat Denver, because I never have been a Bronco fan.)
ADDENDUM: I have gone on a speed blogging binge so if you are a lazy scroller, be sure to scroll down and check out the links I posted, last evening. Some are pretty darned funny.
China Said To Be Moving Closer To U.S. And E.U. On Iran Nuke Situation
From the San Diego Union-Tribune and the AP comes this story.
They need to be concerned. China has long buried their heads in the sand about Iran and the Islamic jihad movement, in general. They think that just because they adhere to an isolationist foreign policy, they are immuned to being targeted.
But even though this sounds a bit promising, I will not be holding my breath on this one, just yet.
VIENNA, Austria – Washington and its European allies, in a diplomatic coup, are gradually enlisting Chinese support on how to deal with Iran and its suspicious nuclear activities, U.S. and European officials said Wednesday.
Beijing's backing before a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday adds additional clout to an ambitious international Iran strategy that has recently seen Russia join the Americans and Europeans in pressuring Iran to give up technology that could make nuclear arms.
They need to be concerned. China has long buried their heads in the sand about Iran and the Islamic jihad movement, in general. They think that just because they adhere to an isolationist foreign policy, they are immuned to being targeted.
But even though this sounds a bit promising, I will not be holding my breath on this one, just yet.
UN Blames Hezbollah For Recent Skirmishes
From the UPI comes this story.
Look out!
We are at DEFCON: Deep Concern.
That's still a long way from DEFCON: Outrage.
Translation: Hezbollah is wrong (sort of). We are sorry. But we are powerless to do anything, because we are irrelevent and the world knows it. Not that we would want to do something, mind you.
Just once wouldn't you love to see the U.N. go to DEFCON: Condemnation or DEFCON: Sanctions, just to see what it's like?
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- The U.N. Security Council has expressed deep concern about hostilities along the Blue Line between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon earlier in the week.
Look out!
We are at DEFCON: Deep Concern.
That's still a long way from DEFCON: Outrage.
In unusual specificity Wednesday, it said the Monday clashes "were initiated by Hezbollah from the Lebanese side, and which quickly spread along the entire Blue Line," and said it regretted the casualties on both sides.
Translation: Hezbollah is wrong (sort of). We are sorry. But we are powerless to do anything, because we are irrelevent and the world knows it. Not that we would want to do something, mind you.
Just once wouldn't you love to see the U.N. go to DEFCON: Condemnation or DEFCON: Sanctions, just to see what it's like?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The Real Reason Dems Are Playing "The Withdrawal Timetable" Card
AICS at The Logic Lifeline has the reason at his site. But I am not going to tell you, you have to go read it for yourself.
A Nickie Goomba Flashback
Nickie Goomba had a post a while back that is still pertinent today and everytime I think about it, I burst out laughing. Even if you have already read it, it will at least make you smile.
Check it out.
Check it out.
Some Thanksgiving Recipes
Ironman at Political Calculations has some Thanksgiving recipes you might enjoy reading. But don't fire up the stove/oven, just yet.
Chirac Solves Muslim Problem
Gandalf at Up Pompeii has the scoop on Chirac's handling of the French riots and his plan to stop them for good. It is foolproof and guarantees peace in France, for ages to come.
Take a minute and read it.
Take a minute and read it.
Koch: Let's Stop Destroying the Country We Love
From Real Clear Politics comes this essay by Ed Koch, former Democratic mayor of New York City and supporter of Operation: Iraqi Freedom. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here is the opening paragraph:
Well, Ed. It's like this. The Democrats are acting foolish.
So, how about we do this? You get the Democrats to stop politicizing the war.
Stop the relentless attacks on what has already been debated and decided. Stop the baseless accusation machine that does nothing to achieve the mutually-agreed goal of, "getting the job done and getting out". Start countering the loud and reckless forces that manufacture false information designed to divide the nation, with some reasoned discourse. Criticize that which deserves criticism, but stop beating a dead horse.
If your party can take the high road first, you can place the ball in the GOP's court and have a valid complaint about them using these kinds of tactics. If the Democrats can re-invent themselves a little and recognize that gaining the trust of the people involves much more than just putting out garbage, you might have a chance to raise up some centrist Democrats (like yourself) that could and would serve the interests, of the American people. Maybe one of them might even get elected President.
But until then, expect this kind of tactic. And expect people like me, to support it.
The Republicans are headed for a seismic crash in the congressional election of 2006. Their effort last week to embarrass House Democrats by forcing a contrived vote on a non-binding resolution to end the war in Iraq by immediately withdrawing all American troops didn’t succeed and shouldn’t have occurred. Everyone lost, including the Democrats, most of whom supported the Republican resolution. Most important, our country lost. We look foolish and in disarray in the eyes of the world.
Well, Ed. It's like this. The Democrats are acting foolish.
So, how about we do this? You get the Democrats to stop politicizing the war.
Stop the relentless attacks on what has already been debated and decided. Stop the baseless accusation machine that does nothing to achieve the mutually-agreed goal of, "getting the job done and getting out". Start countering the loud and reckless forces that manufacture false information designed to divide the nation, with some reasoned discourse. Criticize that which deserves criticism, but stop beating a dead horse.
If your party can take the high road first, you can place the ball in the GOP's court and have a valid complaint about them using these kinds of tactics. If the Democrats can re-invent themselves a little and recognize that gaining the trust of the people involves much more than just putting out garbage, you might have a chance to raise up some centrist Democrats (like yourself) that could and would serve the interests, of the American people. Maybe one of them might even get elected President.
But until then, expect this kind of tactic. And expect people like me, to support it.
Australian Faces December 2 Execution
From the UPI, Singapore is set to execute an Australian citizen for drug smuggling. And the Aussies are not happy about it.
One side of me says, they know the laws.
It's no secret in most parts of the world that Singapore is well-known for harsh laws. That's precisely why you find a significantly lower crime rate than most other countries. They know the risk. They take the chance.
But the other side of me says, the punishment is far greater than the magnitude of the crime.
It's no secret to many of my longtime readers that I am no fan of the death penalty (for several reasons). But if you are going to have a penalty in which the state can legally put a person to death, you need to make damned sure it is reserved for the most heinous of crimes. Anything else is barbaric and on the moral level of what the jihadists want to do.
Question. When was the last time you heard the UN, EU, and other ineffective bleeding heart moralists criticize Singapore for their death penalty? But we never run short on criticism on Gitmo, do we? We can't shake the rap on Abu Ghraib, can we?
SYDNEY, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Australian media Wednesday accused Singapore of hypocrisy for hanging insignificant drug mules while backing the heroin-producing nation of Myanmar.
One side of me says, they know the laws.
It's no secret in most parts of the world that Singapore is well-known for harsh laws. That's precisely why you find a significantly lower crime rate than most other countries. They know the risk. They take the chance.
But the other side of me says, the punishment is far greater than the magnitude of the crime.
It's no secret to many of my longtime readers that I am no fan of the death penalty (for several reasons). But if you are going to have a penalty in which the state can legally put a person to death, you need to make damned sure it is reserved for the most heinous of crimes. Anything else is barbaric and on the moral level of what the jihadists want to do.
Question. When was the last time you heard the UN, EU, and other ineffective bleeding heart moralists criticize Singapore for their death penalty? But we never run short on criticism on Gitmo, do we? We can't shake the rap on Abu Ghraib, can we?
Obama Calls For Troop Reductions
From the AP comes this report on Barack Obama's call for troop reductions.
I know it is imperative for the Democrats to win an election. They haven't won a lot of them lately. But what can you honestly expect? They haven't any ideas.
But beyond that, can anyone tell me why they feel it is so imperative to broadcast intentions that have no business being broadcast? Furthermore, why is it so hard for them to absorb the concept that "setting a timetable in public is not good strategy"?
CHICAGO (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a troop reduction in Iraq and criticized the Bush administration for questioning the patriotism of people who have spoken out against the war.
I know it is imperative for the Democrats to win an election. They haven't won a lot of them lately. But what can you honestly expect? They haven't any ideas.
But beyond that, can anyone tell me why they feel it is so imperative to broadcast intentions that have no business being broadcast? Furthermore, why is it so hard for them to absorb the concept that "setting a timetable in public is not good strategy"?
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1917-1963
Today is the day the assassin's (or assassins'?) bullets struck and killed the President, 42 years ago. I was in kindergarten in Fairfield California, when I heard the news. Where were you?
I have no doubt (from the many books I have read on this man) that if he were President today, he would be fighting the war on terror. He was an American first, a politician second. He was a Democrat when it was honorable to be a Democrat. And he did not like it when America or her interests, were threatened.
Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when the true Democrats will squeeze out the leftists that have hijacked the party and make it the party of Kennedy, again.
I have no doubt (from the many books I have read on this man) that if he were President today, he would be fighting the war on terror. He was an American first, a politician second. He was a Democrat when it was honorable to be a Democrat. And he did not like it when America or her interests, were threatened.
Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when the true Democrats will squeeze out the leftists that have hijacked the party and make it the party of Kennedy, again.
Hezbollah Terrorists Killed In Failed Israeli Raid
From Reuters comes this article on a failed raid to capture Israeli Soldiers, possibly for prisoner exchange purposes. The thing that amazes me is the incredible amount of restraint that Israel shows, in spite of the crap they absorb, squarely on the chin.
There will come a day when they won't.
There will come a day when they won't.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
House Rejects Immediate Withdrawal 403-3
From the AP, the vote is in.
The time to vote is over, they had their chance. Last evening the House voted on what I erroneously reported in my last post as Rep. Murtha's (D-PA) proposal. It was the proposal by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). (PYY corrects all factual errors when discovered or pointed out.)
Three people voted for the immediate withdrawal. They are:
Jose Serrano of New York
Robert Wexler of Florida
Cynthia McKinney of Georgia
These three are the only ones I expect to see capitalizing on or getting in on photo-ops with the Cindy Sheehan circus over the holiday. Those that voted yes and still do so, will do so at their own political risk.
Six cowards voted present and did not have the guts to vote one way or the other. They are:
Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington
Jerrold Nadler of New York
Maurice Hinchey of New York
Major Owens of New York
Michael Capuano of Massachusetts
William Lacy Clay of Missouri.
Unlike the three that had the guts to vote no and face the voters with that vote, these six cowards should not be seen or heard in the same sound bites with the Cindy Sheehan circus. They had their chance. They are gutless and spineless wonders that should be voted out of their districts for not having the courage to take a stand, one way or the other.
The time to vote is over, they had their chance. Last evening the House voted on what I erroneously reported in my last post as Rep. Murtha's (D-PA) proposal. It was the proposal by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). (PYY corrects all factual errors when discovered or pointed out.)
Three people voted for the immediate withdrawal. They are:
Jose Serrano of New York
Robert Wexler of Florida
Cynthia McKinney of Georgia
These three are the only ones I expect to see capitalizing on or getting in on photo-ops with the Cindy Sheehan circus over the holiday. Those that voted yes and still do so, will do so at their own political risk.
Six cowards voted present and did not have the guts to vote one way or the other. They are:
Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington
Jerrold Nadler of New York
Maurice Hinchey of New York
Major Owens of New York
Michael Capuano of Massachusetts
William Lacy Clay of Missouri.
Unlike the three that had the guts to vote no and face the voters with that vote, these six cowards should not be seen or heard in the same sound bites with the Cindy Sheehan circus. They had their chance. They are gutless and spineless wonders that should be voted out of their districts for not having the courage to take a stand, one way or the other.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Moments Of Brilliance
From the Associated Press, the House is to take a vote on Murtha's proposal.
Brilliant!!!!!
Put all of their asses on the record.
AGAIN!!!!!
Brilliant!!!!!!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans maneuvered for swift rejection Friday of any notion of immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sparking a nasty, sometimes personal debate over the war and a Democratic lawmaker's own call for withdrawal.
Brilliant!!!!!
Put all of their asses on the record.
AGAIN!!!!!
Brilliant!!!!!!
Remembrance
Shah from Global American Discourse has provided yours truly with a link to a recent article, published in the Washington Post and on the Carnegie Endowment website. It is a good article and well worth the read, but here are a couple of excerpts:
What part of this is so hard for the left to comprehend?
Just for argument's sake, let's say that this whole thing is wrong. Let's say that George Bush did take us to war under false pretenses. Each and every one of these people and a whole host of others as well, had the opportunity to make this argument, back then. Why did they not do it, then?
One word, politics.
On Iraq, Short Memories
By Robert Kagan
The Washington Post, September 12, 2005
If you read even respectable journals these days, including this one, you would think that no more than six or seven people ever supported going to war in Iraq. A recent piece in The Post's Style section suggested that the war was an "idea" that President Bush "dusted off" five years after Bill Kristol and I came up with it in the Weekly Standard.
That's not the way I recall it. I recall support for removing Saddam Hussein by force being pretty widespread from the late 1990s through the spring of 2003, among Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, as well as neoconservatives. We all had the same information, and we got it from the same sources. I certainly had never based my judgment on American intelligence, faulty or otherwise, much less on the intelligence produced by the Bush administration before the war. I don't think anyone else did either. I had formed my impressions during the 1990s entirely on the basis of what I regarded as two fairly reliable sources: the U.N. weapons inspectors, led first by Rolf Ekeus and then by Richard Butler; and senior Clinton administration officials, especially President Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Al Gore.
What part of this is so hard for the left to comprehend?
Just for argument's sake, let's say that this whole thing is wrong. Let's say that George Bush did take us to war under false pretenses. Each and every one of these people and a whole host of others as well, had the opportunity to make this argument, back then. Why did they not do it, then?
It's interesting to watch people rewrite history, even their own. My father recently recalled for me a line from Thucydides, which Pericles delivered to the Athenians in the difficult second year of the three-decade war with Sparta. "I am the same man and do not alter, it is you who change, since in fact you took my advice while unhurt, and waited for misfortune to repent of it."
One word, politics.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
What Every Nation Needs
To effectively understand happy, we must also understand sad; to know hot, we must also know cold. And to to know good, we must first know bad. Otherwise, how would we distinguish the differences between them?
To be able to obtain any reasonable understanding of just about anything, we must know and understand the antithesis, of said subject. And politics is no exception.
Take Jimmy Carter, for instance. He has recently thrust himself back into the limelight of the political world just in time for the twilight of his life. And why he wants this for himself at this point, I do not understand. But it does make him fair game for criticism. So, this is just a measure of that criticism:
In spite of being squashed in his re-election bid by the most popular President in my lifetime and after redeeming himself by doing good work with Habitat For Humanity (and other charitable endeavors), Mr. Carter has decided that the nation needs grandfatherly advice from a former president.
But really, we don't. Thanks, but, no thanks.
We do, however, need to remember what it was like to live under double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, the lowest morale of any peacetime military in modern times, and nightly reports of the Iranians committing acts of terrorism at the state level, almost totally unchallenged. (There were some strongly worded statements and one failed rescue attempt. But otherwise there was nothing, except passive acceptance.)
We need to be reminded (or taught, if we are too young to remember) just how we were able to develop such a massive and collective low self-esteem; a self-esteem problem that came as a side effect, of having an indecisive President that struggled for answers, when the problems called for decisions (also known as, the Carter Malaise). We need to have an understanding of what got us to that point.
We need to know and understand that by his very far-left stances on foreign policy issues, he helped set in motion a leftist revolution in Nicaragua, that didn't solve one damned issue in the area of human rights (something he harped on continuously while he was President). The only thing that revolution demonstrated, was how to trade one form of tyranny for another.
Why do we need to know all of this?
Because, we cannot know success until we can know failure. And aside from his brokered peace deal between Israel and Egypt, his presidency was one miserable failure after another, if there ever was one.
So, how does that play out today?
For one thing and as I said earlier, Mr. Carter has found it necessary to offer unneeded and unsolicited advice. It's well within his rights mind you, no argument about that. But it leads us to ask ourselves, something.
What can we really gain from advice from someone that couldn't do a reasonably decent job, when it was his moment in the sun?
It's not enough he screwed it up then. Does he now have to encourage the loud and seditious left, to try and screw it up worse than they already have? Does he not see that America was not better off four years after he took office, as was evidenced by his landslide loss in the 1980 election? Does he want to contaminate another generation with his leftist influences that clearly were faulty, almost thirty years ago?
Now, maybe you have heard the saying: No one is ever completely worthless. At very least, they can serve as a bad example. Well I am here today, to tell one and all that Mr. Carter was that bad example. There may be no better person in the world as far as sincerity goes, but in terms of job performance, he was the worst and the facts speak loudly and clearly for themselves. His status as a human being has no bearing on this, whatsoever.
That's why every nation at some point in its history needs a Jimmy Carter, to put things into perspective and serve as that bad example. By providing that, the nation as a whole can come to the realization that they, can and should, expect better from their elected officials. They need to go to the bottom of the pit, so they can have a profound appreciation for being on the mountain top.
France has needed a Jimmy Carter for years. They have theirs now.
Jacques Chirac and Jimmy Carter were cut from the same leadership mold, if there ever was such a thing. (They even have the same intitials, J.C., how prophetic is that?) The "do nothing and wait until it goes away on its own" school of thought, still has a man in the tournament. He is alive and well, and he is running France into the ground, just like Carter did in the United States.
But, that's good news. That means that there could be a new day dawning, in the Republique. It means that there is potential for the French to recognize the pit they are in, develop the willingness to rise up from that pit, and set their sights on that mountain top.
If you see this like I see it, you can also see that failure is nothing more than positive feedback. You see the failure, you make the necessary adjustments, and you carry on. Then, you turn the negative into a positive, by using that bad example as your motivation to do better.
To all of those that subscribe to this philosophy, the sky is the limit. To everyone else, there's always the safety and security of the pit.
Cross posted at The Wide Awakes
Special thanks to Gindy for the link to the LA Times editorial.
To be able to obtain any reasonable understanding of just about anything, we must know and understand the antithesis, of said subject. And politics is no exception.
Take Jimmy Carter, for instance. He has recently thrust himself back into the limelight of the political world just in time for the twilight of his life. And why he wants this for himself at this point, I do not understand. But it does make him fair game for criticism. So, this is just a measure of that criticism:
In spite of being squashed in his re-election bid by the most popular President in my lifetime and after redeeming himself by doing good work with Habitat For Humanity (and other charitable endeavors), Mr. Carter has decided that the nation needs grandfatherly advice from a former president.
But really, we don't. Thanks, but, no thanks.
We do, however, need to remember what it was like to live under double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, the lowest morale of any peacetime military in modern times, and nightly reports of the Iranians committing acts of terrorism at the state level, almost totally unchallenged. (There were some strongly worded statements and one failed rescue attempt. But otherwise there was nothing, except passive acceptance.)
We need to be reminded (or taught, if we are too young to remember) just how we were able to develop such a massive and collective low self-esteem; a self-esteem problem that came as a side effect, of having an indecisive President that struggled for answers, when the problems called for decisions (also known as, the Carter Malaise). We need to have an understanding of what got us to that point.
We need to know and understand that by his very far-left stances on foreign policy issues, he helped set in motion a leftist revolution in Nicaragua, that didn't solve one damned issue in the area of human rights (something he harped on continuously while he was President). The only thing that revolution demonstrated, was how to trade one form of tyranny for another.
Why do we need to know all of this?
Because, we cannot know success until we can know failure. And aside from his brokered peace deal between Israel and Egypt, his presidency was one miserable failure after another, if there ever was one.
So, how does that play out today?
For one thing and as I said earlier, Mr. Carter has found it necessary to offer unneeded and unsolicited advice. It's well within his rights mind you, no argument about that. But it leads us to ask ourselves, something.
What can we really gain from advice from someone that couldn't do a reasonably decent job, when it was his moment in the sun?
It's not enough he screwed it up then. Does he now have to encourage the loud and seditious left, to try and screw it up worse than they already have? Does he not see that America was not better off four years after he took office, as was evidenced by his landslide loss in the 1980 election? Does he want to contaminate another generation with his leftist influences that clearly were faulty, almost thirty years ago?
Now, maybe you have heard the saying: No one is ever completely worthless. At very least, they can serve as a bad example. Well I am here today, to tell one and all that Mr. Carter was that bad example. There may be no better person in the world as far as sincerity goes, but in terms of job performance, he was the worst and the facts speak loudly and clearly for themselves. His status as a human being has no bearing on this, whatsoever.
That's why every nation at some point in its history needs a Jimmy Carter, to put things into perspective and serve as that bad example. By providing that, the nation as a whole can come to the realization that they, can and should, expect better from their elected officials. They need to go to the bottom of the pit, so they can have a profound appreciation for being on the mountain top.
France has needed a Jimmy Carter for years. They have theirs now.
Jacques Chirac and Jimmy Carter were cut from the same leadership mold, if there ever was such a thing. (They even have the same intitials, J.C., how prophetic is that?) The "do nothing and wait until it goes away on its own" school of thought, still has a man in the tournament. He is alive and well, and he is running France into the ground, just like Carter did in the United States.
But, that's good news. That means that there could be a new day dawning, in the Republique. It means that there is potential for the French to recognize the pit they are in, develop the willingness to rise up from that pit, and set their sights on that mountain top.
If you see this like I see it, you can also see that failure is nothing more than positive feedback. You see the failure, you make the necessary adjustments, and you carry on. Then, you turn the negative into a positive, by using that bad example as your motivation to do better.
To all of those that subscribe to this philosophy, the sky is the limit. To everyone else, there's always the safety and security of the pit.
Cross posted at The Wide Awakes
Special thanks to Gindy for the link to the LA Times editorial.
Did Bush Lie?
Let's see what Google has to say when Clinton, Iraq, and 1998 are used to make a search.
I got this link from Nickie Goomba, who got it from Michelle Malkin . Now that the credit formalities are over, let's take a closer look at a couple of the items turned up in the search, shall we?
H.R.4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (courtesy of Iraq Watch)
Let's look at an excerpt:
Okay. The House recognizes the threat and forms a policy. Sounds fair to me.
Now let's look at how it was received by the executive branch of government, in the same year. Here are the words of President William Jefferson Clinton, at the time of the bill's signing.
There is more to the statement and you can read it for yourself, but you get the idea, right?
How did he implement this? Let's take a look here.
By all means, please read that one in its entirety, lest you think I am cherry-picking information.
Now let's look at something from the former President, more recent:
Now, a quick question to all those on the left.
I got this link from Nickie Goomba, who got it from Michelle Malkin . Now that the credit formalities are over, let's take a closer look at a couple of the items turned up in the search, shall we?
H.R.4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (courtesy of Iraq Watch)
Let's look at an excerpt:
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Okay. The House recognizes the threat and forms a policy. Sounds fair to me.
Now let's look at how it was received by the executive branch of government, in the same year. Here are the words of President William Jefferson Clinton, at the time of the bill's signing.
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
There is more to the statement and you can read it for yourself, but you get the idea, right?
How did he implement this? Let's take a look here.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
By all means, please read that one in its entirety, lest you think I am cherry-picking information.
Now let's look at something from the former President, more recent:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Nov 16, 2005 — Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.
Now, a quick question to all those on the left.
Who did you say lied?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
ISNA Cleared In Senate Investigation
The Islamic Society of North America which is based in suburban Indianapolis has evidently been cleared in an investigation conducted by the the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, so says the Indianapolis Star.
On one hand, this is good news. It certainly doesn't make me a bit happy to have to post on the negative aspects that involve Muslims in this country. But on the other hand, I would caution those that would become too elated with this. This is an investigation of financial records only. It has no bearing on any other investigations that may be under way at this time.
This is indicates that law enforcement is still keeping a close eye on the organization. And, wisely so.
That's nice. And they are to be commended for this.
But what would really make me and many others more comfortable, is to hear some condemnation of the heinous acts of the Salafist Jihadists that are hell bent on destroying western civilization, as we know it. What I want to hear is, official public condemnation for groups like Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the others that are committed to the destruction of the Jewish nation and race. I would also like to hear them condemn states like Syria and Iran that openly support international terror. I would love nothing more than to see them do this, instead of just offering condolences when tragedy strikes at the hands of those that call themselves, Muslims. (Check their website, I won't link to them.)
So until all of this happens, I will remain very skeptical of these so-called "moderate" Islamic groups. You can safely assume that I will not be swapping spit in the shower with any of them, anytime in the near future.
Safi, at least on the surface, is stating publicly that he understands. But still, he gets his dig in. And as you see, CAIR is always in the shadows using situations like this, as propaganda opportunities. CAIR will do whatever dirty work needs to be done, any time there is perceived discrimination towards any Muslim.
Bottom line:
If they want me to believe their true sincerity, they need to show me more. They need to condemn the heinous killers, work with us to root and weed out the reprobates that have "hijacked" Islam, and teach only peace, in their mosques. Not just once, not just twice. But by doing it consistently, making it a way of life, and not as a smoke screen or lip service.
Rest assured, I will not settle for one damned thing less.
A U.S. Senate committee found nothing "alarming" in the financial records of the Plainfield-based Islamic Society of North America and nearly two dozen other Muslim groups the committee reviewed searching for terrorist connections.
"Of course we were sure that nothing would come out with regard to ISNA, but it is good to see that they have come to that conclusion as well," said Louay Safi, executive director of an Islamic Society program that develops new Muslim leaders.
On one hand, this is good news. It certainly doesn't make me a bit happy to have to post on the negative aspects that involve Muslims in this country. But on the other hand, I would caution those that would become too elated with this. This is an investigation of financial records only. It has no bearing on any other investigations that may be under way at this time.
"We did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing," U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who heads the committee, said in a statement. "If something in the future does cause new concern, we will continue the investigation."
This is indicates that law enforcement is still keeping a close eye on the organization. And, wisely so.
"We cooperated with their investigation. We provided records. I am glad to hear this has been concluded," Safi said.
That's nice. And they are to be commended for this.
But what would really make me and many others more comfortable, is to hear some condemnation of the heinous acts of the Salafist Jihadists that are hell bent on destroying western civilization, as we know it. What I want to hear is, official public condemnation for groups like Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the others that are committed to the destruction of the Jewish nation and race. I would also like to hear them condemn states like Syria and Iran that openly support international terror. I would love nothing more than to see them do this, instead of just offering condolences when tragedy strikes at the hands of those that call themselves, Muslims. (Check their website, I won't link to them.)
So until all of this happens, I will remain very skeptical of these so-called "moderate" Islamic groups. You can safely assume that I will not be swapping spit in the shower with any of them, anytime in the near future.
Safi said he understands that the terrorist threat requires the government's vigilance. But he said it is disheartening how innocent Muslim organizations have been "smeared" in this process.
The Senate investigation was widely reported, casting doubt on the Islamic Society at a time many Muslims in the United States were viewed suspiciously because of the terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City.
Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the Senate Finance Committee had gone on a "fishing expedition" that did nothing but reinforce the idea that Muslims are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to terrorism accusations."Unfortunately," Iftikhar said, "I think this is indicative of federal law enforcement's dragnet against the American Muslim community."
Safi, at least on the surface, is stating publicly that he understands. But still, he gets his dig in. And as you see, CAIR is always in the shadows using situations like this, as propaganda opportunities. CAIR will do whatever dirty work needs to be done, any time there is perceived discrimination towards any Muslim.
Bottom line:
If they want me to believe their true sincerity, they need to show me more. They need to condemn the heinous killers, work with us to root and weed out the reprobates that have "hijacked" Islam, and teach only peace, in their mosques. Not just once, not just twice. But by doing it consistently, making it a way of life, and not as a smoke screen or lip service.
Rest assured, I will not settle for one damned thing less.
AP: Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate
Escalates? He gives a second speech that defends his integrity and he is escalating the stir? I think it was already escalated and he has let the Dems have the podium for far too long.
But:
The good old AP is at it again.
If this is what he has to do, then he has to do it. But the Dems need to understand that the American people are going to see more and more that the ones that are of low integrity and are of the highest hypocritical order, are the ones that voted yea and now, want to change their vote.
Here are what some of the noisemakers said before the war:
The sad thing is there are hundreds of quotes from people, just like these. But they do not want to talk about it. They sidestep and minimize this as something trivial. They are not being held accountable, they are hypocrites.
We have three branches of government. Congress was consulted, Congress agreed by a vote. To put this all on the shoulders of the executive branch now, after the fact, is ridiculous.
I swear, I have never in my life witnessed a more cowardly bunch legislators, in my entire life. They are an embarassment to this nation and to themselves. They will not now, nor will they ever solve a damned thing, with this approach.
Also:
The Logic Lifeline has some thoughts on this, check them out.
But:
The good old AP is at it again.
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (AP) -- President Bush escalated the bitter debate over the Iraq war on Monday, hurling back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the world.
"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now," Bush charged.
Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war.
"Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past," Bush said. "They're playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible."
If this is what he has to do, then he has to do it. But the Dems need to understand that the American people are going to see more and more that the ones that are of low integrity and are of the highest hypocritical order, are the ones that voted yea and now, want to change their vote.
Here are what some of the noisemakers said before the war:
-"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
-"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
-"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev., then the Democratic whip.
The sad thing is there are hundreds of quotes from people, just like these. But they do not want to talk about it. They sidestep and minimize this as something trivial. They are not being held accountable, they are hypocrites.
We have three branches of government. Congress was consulted, Congress agreed by a vote. To put this all on the shoulders of the executive branch now, after the fact, is ridiculous.
I swear, I have never in my life witnessed a more cowardly bunch legislators, in my entire life. They are an embarassment to this nation and to themselves. They will not now, nor will they ever solve a damned thing, with this approach.
Also:
The Logic Lifeline has some thoughts on this, check them out.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Chirac Addresses France
From the IHT: Chirac addresses 'malaise' in France.
Here are some excerpts from the article, translated for those of you that do not speak the Elitist language:
Translation:
After over two weeks of hiding in cowardice and shame, Jacques Chirac had the guts to face the nation of he has repeatedly let down over the years, this time being no exception. He explained the technology of the bandaid that will be used to stop the flow of arterial blood, from a major artery.
Translation:
We, the French citizens that have so much, compared to the poor innocent victims of our own discriminatory practices, are at fault.
Translation:
We owe it to them.
Translation:
He said he was going to tax the hell out of the already highly taxed citizens of this country, to pay for programs that will not work; but will buy us a little more time, for him to think of something. This task force will be made up of overly educated elitists that have never worked a day in their entire lives (except to attend meetings, conferences, and symposiums) and should be done in time for the 2007 presidential election.
Translation:
Now would be a good time to try and slip this in under the radar, while the riots are still ongoing and distracting the nation, in order to exploit it for maximum emotional appeal.
(Note: Breton is the Finance Minister)
Translation:
A Brigade of accountants are already working to come with funding and getting the checks cut. As they say in America, "the check is in the mail".
Translation:
France's image is shot.
That's all we have time for today, folks. I hope this helps. And might I suggest, for an enriching experience, an ESL (Elitist as a Second Language) course. It makes articles from the MSM so much easier to understand.
Here are some excerpts from the article, translated for those of you that do not speak the Elitist language:
In his first formal address to the nation since riots erupted in France almost three weeks ago, President Jacques Chirac said Monday that restoring security remained his first priority, but he also spelled out proposals to combat unemployment and discrimination among the country's disaffected minorities.
Translation:
After over two weeks of hiding in cowardice and shame, Jacques Chirac had the guts to face the nation of he has repeatedly let down over the years, this time being no exception. He explained the technology of the bandaid that will be used to stop the flow of arterial blood, from a major artery.
These events are a sign of a deep malaise," Chirac said of the unrest. "We will respond by being firm, by being fair and by being true to the values of France."
Translation:
We, the French citizens that have so much, compared to the poor innocent victims of our own discriminatory practices, are at fault.
"It is the duty of the republic to give everybody the same opportunities," he said. "Discrimination saps the very foundation of our republic."
Translation:
We owe it to them.
He also said he would establish a task force to help young people find work. "To help young people, especially young people in difficulty, to get employment, I've decided to create a voluntary task force combining support and training," he said, adding that it would help 50,000 young people in 2007.
Translation:
He said he was going to tax the hell out of the already highly taxed citizens of this country, to pay for programs that will not work; but will buy us a little more time, for him to think of something. This task force will be made up of overly educated elitists that have never worked a day in their entire lives (except to attend meetings, conferences, and symposiums) and should be done in time for the 2007 presidential election.
During his press luncheon on Monday, Breton said the riots were an opportunity to push ahead with changes to France's rigid labor market.
"We are trying to use them to change the country," Breton said.
Translation:
Now would be a good time to try and slip this in under the radar, while the riots are still ongoing and distracting the nation, in order to exploit it for maximum emotional appeal.
(Note: Breton is the Finance Minister)
He said Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin would soon announce a package of measures targeting the suburban areas that have been the scene of recent rioting.
Translation:
A Brigade of accountants are already working to come with funding and getting the checks cut. As they say in America, "the check is in the mail".
France's image at stake.
Translation:
France's image is shot.
That's all we have time for today, folks. I hope this helps. And might I suggest, for an enriching experience, an ESL (Elitist as a Second Language) course. It makes articles from the MSM so much easier to understand.
Al's Cognitive Follies Continue
Al Gore, the man that invented the internet, the lockbox, and popularized the modern-day Democratic hissy fit (because he didn't get his way), is back in the news for another idiotic statement. (Via The Age)
Al Gore:
It is evident that what we are dealing with here, is a man that has a physiological problem with his neurons synapsing, properly.
Al and his MoveOn.Org cult following have failed to recognize that if we lose the battle to terrorism, there cannot/will not be any debate on global warming, whatsoever. In fact, there will be no debate on taxes, social security, capitalism vs. socialism, or anything at all. The debates that take place now would all mean nothing, if we have no economy, so safety, and no freedom.
Now, I ask you:
Which is really most serious and which can kill us all faster?
Al Gore:
"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."
It is evident that what we are dealing with here, is a man that has a physiological problem with his neurons synapsing, properly.
Al and his MoveOn.Org cult following have failed to recognize that if we lose the battle to terrorism, there cannot/will not be any debate on global warming, whatsoever. In fact, there will be no debate on taxes, social security, capitalism vs. socialism, or anything at all. The debates that take place now would all mean nothing, if we have no economy, so safety, and no freedom.
Now, I ask you:
Which is really most serious and which can kill us all faster?
Sunday, November 13, 2005
News Briefs
AP: CARTER DISTURBED BY DIRECTION OF U.S.
As a person, a human being, as one who really does care about his fellow man, Jimmy Carter is the best. But his presidency was a miserable failure. Even his own party would not work with him because he was so liberal that most of them would not have gotten re-elected if they had supported all of his proposals.
Remember the double digit inflation, under Carter? I do.
I could write a whole post on the failures of this man. But the fact remains, this country is a hell of a lot better off than when he was steering the helm.
Wash. Post: DEMOCRATS LOSING RACE FOR FUNDS UNDER DEAN
Not surprising, when you consider the next brief.
FROM DRUDGE
Carter wouldn't even support him for president during the primaries, after Dean flew down and attended church services with him, unannounced.
Want a bigger failure than Carter? Look no further than Howard Dean. But at least Carter was not a coward and Dean is.
As a person, a human being, as one who really does care about his fellow man, Jimmy Carter is the best. But his presidency was a miserable failure. Even his own party would not work with him because he was so liberal that most of them would not have gotten re-elected if they had supported all of his proposals.
Remember the double digit inflation, under Carter? I do.
I could write a whole post on the failures of this man. But the fact remains, this country is a hell of a lot better off than when he was steering the helm.
Wash. Post: DEMOCRATS LOSING RACE FOR FUNDS UNDER DEAN
The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean is losing the fundraising race against Republicans by nearly 2 to 1, a slow start that is stirring concern among strategists who worry that a cash shortage could hinder the party's competitiveness in next year's midterm elections.
Not surprising, when you consider the next brief.
FROM DRUDGE
DNC CHAIRMAN HOWARD DEAN REFUSES TO APPEAR ON SET WITH RNC CHAIR DURING TOMORROW 'MEET THE PRESS', SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEAN ONLY AGREED TO BACK-TO-BACK INTERVIEWS ON NBC WITH RIVAL... DEVELOPING...
Carter wouldn't even support him for president during the primaries, after Dean flew down and attended church services with him, unannounced.
Want a bigger failure than Carter? Look no further than Howard Dean. But at least Carter was not a coward and Dean is.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
China Leader Hu Visiting Germany
The leader of China's leader Hu Jintao is visiting Germany. Ray at David's Medienkritik has some thoughts he shares with the world.
Here is a snippet:
That about says it all.
This is precisely why continental Europe has its priorities so screwed up, they can't see straight. China never helped liberate Europe. They haven't done a thing, to promote the human rights that is the staple of the precious EU's platform. Yet, he gets treated like a king.
But from the sounds of things, he won't get everything he wants handed to him, on a silver patter. Incoming Chancellor Merkel has reportedly told him that she will not support the lifting of the arms embargo. The AFP has the story.
Good for her.
Here is a snippet:
...while Germany's Eurosnob elite wines and dines President Hu, there will be no angry mass protests or cries of indignation on German streets. There will be no rainbow flags embroidered with "PACE" accompanied by Tibetan and Taiwanese flags. There will be no peace drums, silent vigils or burning of Hu Jintao effigies. There will be no courageous speeches on morality or human rights in front of thousands of drunk and screaming marchers. There will be few if any indignant editorials condemning President Hu in leading German papers, magazines or news broadcasts.
That about says it all.
This is precisely why continental Europe has its priorities so screwed up, they can't see straight. China never helped liberate Europe. They haven't done a thing, to promote the human rights that is the staple of the precious EU's platform. Yet, he gets treated like a king.
But from the sounds of things, he won't get everything he wants handed to him, on a silver patter. Incoming Chancellor Merkel has reportedly told him that she will not support the lifting of the arms embargo. The AFP has the story.
Good for her.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Bush Chastises Critics For Attempting To Rewrite History
There are many reports coming in with analysis of the President's Veteran's Day speech today, in Pennsylvania. So far no outlet has published a transcript.
I watched it, it was to the point, and it was an indictment on those Democrats that voted for the war, yet now are calling into question the intelligence that led them, to vote for it. Especially, since they had seen the same intelligence reports, he did.
From MSNBC
From Bloomberg
Here is the Senate roll call vote for the authorization to use force.
Notice some of the names that voted yea?
Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-FL), Reid (D-NV), Schumer (D-NY), Torricelli (D-NJ).
I watched it, it was to the point, and it was an indictment on those Democrats that voted for the war, yet now are calling into question the intelligence that led them, to vote for it. Especially, since they had seen the same intelligence reports, he did.
From MSNBC
“The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges,” the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.
“While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” the president said.
From Bloomberg
``It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began,'' Bush told military families at an Army depot near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania today. ``More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.''
``Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,'' Bush said in a Veterans Day speech.
``These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgment related to Iraq's weapons programs,'' he said
Here is the Senate roll call vote for the authorization to use force.
Notice some of the names that voted yea?
Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-FL), Reid (D-NV), Schumer (D-NY), Torricelli (D-NJ).
Muslims That Thank The U.S. For Freedom
Want to see something neat? Want to see some Muslims that are actually grateful for freeing them from the genocide perpetrated by Saddam? Then click on Kurdistan, The Other Iraq.
This group is running a national ad campaign on TV. It's a damned shame that someone has to ante up advertising money, to thank the United States for their freedom. All they see in the MSM is how every Muslim is against the Great Satan.
Check it out, will you?
This group is running a national ad campaign on TV. It's a damned shame that someone has to ante up advertising money, to thank the United States for their freedom. All they see in the MSM is how every Muslim is against the Great Satan.
Check it out, will you?
Comments Well Worth Highlighting
From the comment section of my post from yesterday, entitled Bush Approval Ratings Continue To Dip. If you haven't read it, read it first. Then the comments will make better sense.
I rarely front out a commenter, but sometimes a commenter raises an excellent point, well-worth repeating. This is one instance, where all three are on the money.
From Les at Living In The Surreal World, who posted this at his site, as well (font in red is my emphasis):
The weak minds that are predisposed to believe in the socialist utopian fantasy are not going to understand what Les just said. The card carrying members of MoveOn.Org and other seditious and destructive political cults will not comprehend it (did you notice I said will not and not cannot). Why?
They have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to the degree that you would need to kidnap them and spend months trying to reprogram them. It's easier to reprogram a Moonie than a leftist cult member.
But for those that are not indoctrinated, maybe just a little confused, and in the process of seeking truth and understanding; what Les is saying is this, it is a smokescreen. They want to deflect the arguments back on the opposition (which usually means the President), so as to put them on the defensive.
Esther from Outside The Blogway and Popeye from The Logic Lifeline understands why, as is evidenced by their comments. (Again, emphasis mine is in red.)
Esther:
Popeye:
Are their actually enough non-thinking fools in this country that will vote for a platform such as this?
What will they do when they lose more elections with this foolish strategy?
I rarely front out a commenter, but sometimes a commenter raises an excellent point, well-worth repeating. This is one instance, where all three are on the money.
From Les at Living In The Surreal World, who posted this at his site, as well (font in red is my emphasis):
They have an idea, it is to replace the society of social and economic consent that we live in with the social and economic primacy of the parasites over the productive. Or as their primary philosophical source (and founding trustifarian) put it, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." And as there is no limit to the needs of the parasite masters there will be no limit on the burdens imposed on the productive slaves.
Poison is poison no matter how much grape flavoring one adds to it. They cannot avoid knowing that their ideal society is toxic to us and thus have no effective choice but to attack the opposition on trivial issues in order to head off a public examination of their basic ideological premises.
Political ideology is basically a means of giving the appearance of positive virtue to actions that are morally intolerable to the victims.
The weak minds that are predisposed to believe in the socialist utopian fantasy are not going to understand what Les just said. The card carrying members of MoveOn.Org and other seditious and destructive political cults will not comprehend it (did you notice I said will not and not cannot). Why?
They have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to the degree that you would need to kidnap them and spend months trying to reprogram them. It's easier to reprogram a Moonie than a leftist cult member.
But for those that are not indoctrinated, maybe just a little confused, and in the process of seeking truth and understanding; what Les is saying is this, it is a smokescreen. They want to deflect the arguments back on the opposition (which usually means the President), so as to put them on the defensive.
Esther from Outside The Blogway and Popeye from The Logic Lifeline understands why, as is evidenced by their comments. (Again, emphasis mine is in red.)
Esther:
They truly don't think they NEED to come up with an idea! I swear -- they think just defeating the republicans' ideas are enough. I've this convo with a pal who works for pelosi til i'm blue in the face. They don't think they need to! Unreal.
Popeye:
My questions are:I have asked on lefty blogs ad nauseum and they will not give one positive point about the Dems. One person asked for my list of positive agenda points which I readily gave. He then criticized mine and said they would run on the antithesis of my ideas. What a low hanging curve ball.
Have you noticed they aren't that bright in the leftist blogosphere? Name calling seems to be the pinnacle of their intellectual achievement.
Are their actually enough non-thinking fools in this country that will vote for a platform such as this?
What will they do when they lose more elections with this foolish strategy?
Ted Koppel Vs. Chris Matthews (A Contrast In Journalistic Approach)
I have always liked and respected Ted Koppel from ABC's Nightline, in spite of the fact that he is just another MSM biased news man. His work ethic has always been top notch, he is educated and a highly intelligent man. And although I didn't always agree with his opinions and his slants, he knows his subject matter very well. He is a very well read man. He reads several newspapers everyday before he leaves the house for work. (He does even more in depth research once he gets to work.)
He will by missed greatly when he leaves the show for good, on Nov.22. At the time of his departure, he will be the last of the news show hosts that took what they did seriously and approached it with much more class and integrity than today's crop of anchors/commentators.
He may have tried to dig for dirt, he had the usual MSM agenda, but he wanted the information to be right. Unless there is an issue I am forgetting, to the best of my knowledge, he never purposely or knowingly ran with a story that was falsified. He, like many others, presented his news in the usual MSM way. Leave a little out here, focus on that a lttle too much there. But, in short, trust was never an issue.
Bias, yes. Trust, no.
But how can we trust the hacks we are left with today. There are several I could get wound up about, the one that riles me the most is MSNBC Hardball host, Chris Matthews.
I happened onto his TV interview with Gen. Wayne Downing on Wednesday, Nov. 9 and have been waiting to write on this; waiting for them to post the transcripts, so I could link to them. Here's how the over-inflated egotist starts the interview:
Here he tries to demonstrate he knows things, but easily contradicts himself by admitting that he is not the expert, albeit in a sarcastic tone.
There's more:
Mr. Interruptus Maximus will not be denied a chance to cut in and attempt to make someone else he may disagree with look like a fool (all the while trying to make himself look like the smart one in the room), will he? Notice how he can't help trying to browbeat the General, using the constant interruption interview model, made famous by Bryant Gumbel and Dan Rather.
But here's the clincher:
You see?
He didn't even know what the hell, a Salafist is. Can you imagine Ted Koppel being so ignorant? Koppel like most in the business had an arrogance about him, but it was an arrogance that he backed up with hard work and brilliant preparation. This clown Matthews is nothing more than a Democratic hack, pretending to be smart when he clearly is not. He has a set agenda and he demonstrates it over and over, night in, night out.
Ask Ted what a salafist is, and you would most likely get a very thorough lesson in the history of Salafism and the course it's on today. Matthews could stand to repeat some classes he may have slept through, in school. The biggest lesson he could learn is to drop the hack attitude and take a lesson, out of the Ted Koppel book of journalism.
He will by missed greatly when he leaves the show for good, on Nov.22. At the time of his departure, he will be the last of the news show hosts that took what they did seriously and approached it with much more class and integrity than today's crop of anchors/commentators.
He may have tried to dig for dirt, he had the usual MSM agenda, but he wanted the information to be right. Unless there is an issue I am forgetting, to the best of my knowledge, he never purposely or knowingly ran with a story that was falsified. He, like many others, presented his news in the usual MSM way. Leave a little out here, focus on that a lttle too much there. But, in short, trust was never an issue.
Bias, yes. Trust, no.
But how can we trust the hacks we are left with today. There are several I could get wound up about, the one that riles me the most is MSNBC Hardball host, Chris Matthews.
I happened onto his TV interview with Gen. Wayne Downing on Wednesday, Nov. 9 and have been waiting to write on this; waiting for them to post the transcripts, so I could link to them. Here's how the over-inflated egotist starts the interview:
MATTHEWS: Tell me about al-Zarqawi. What kind of power does he have within Jordan? We know he operates now out of Iraq. He moved his operation there. Is he still running the show in terms of al Qaeda in Jordan?
DOWNING: Chris, you know al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I know that.
DOWNING: That‘s where he comes in.
MATTHEWS: Well, I have learned that tonight, but I am not an expert, but go ahead.
DOWNING: He has great influence over this area.
MATTHEWS: Right.
Here he tries to demonstrate he knows things, but easily contradicts himself by admitting that he is not the expert, albeit in a sarcastic tone.
There's more:
MATTHEWS: What is the goal?
DOWNING: The goal is to destabilize it and eventually take it over. And remember, Chris, it‘s a little bit different from where you were talking with Senator McCain here in the previous segment. This is about political power.
You know, that‘s why we cannot afford for Iraq to fall apart on us, because if they took the Sunni Triangle and made that a Salafist—read Taliban—state, that would be the base which they could destabilize an entire ...
MATTHEWS: Give me examples of this kind of terrorism we are seeing in Amman tonight, blowing up three hotels, killing perhaps maybe—we will see, over 50 so far, injuring 200. How does that lead to control of a country? Give me an example of where that kind of terrorism has led to control of an Arab country?
DOWNING: Well, that‘s their plan.
MATTHEWS: No, where has it worked?
DOWNING: That‘s the weapon ...
MATTHEWS: But where has it worked, general?
DOWNING: ... that they are using right now. They are trying to make it work in Iraq. They are trying on another scale ...
MATTHEWS: But we knocked off that government. We created a new interim situation over there.
Mr. Interruptus Maximus will not be denied a chance to cut in and attempt to make someone else he may disagree with look like a fool (all the while trying to make himself look like the smart one in the room), will he? Notice how he can't help trying to browbeat the General, using the constant interruption interview model, made famous by Bryant Gumbel and Dan Rather.
But here's the clincher:
DOWNING: Absolutely. Absolutely it is. That‘s a way to escalate the irritation. That‘s why terrorists in many cases do what they are doing. The other thing that Salafists want us to do ...
MATTHEWS: What is a Salafist?
DOWNING: A Salafist is an extreme Islamist who believes in returning to the old ways of the Koran of the 7th, 8th, 9th century. And there was something they called back there, Chris, called the caliphate. They want to return to that, they want the concept.
MATTHEWS: Do they want to go back to Andalusia? They want to get Spain back?
DOWNING: Sure, they do.
MATTHEWS: They do?
LASUNSETT: No dumbass, he is just saying that for some kind of comedic relief. Of course they do, did you even listen to his answer the first time. (Not on official transcripts, but was overheard in the Sunsett living room)
You see?
He didn't even know what the hell, a Salafist is. Can you imagine Ted Koppel being so ignorant? Koppel like most in the business had an arrogance about him, but it was an arrogance that he backed up with hard work and brilliant preparation. This clown Matthews is nothing more than a Democratic hack, pretending to be smart when he clearly is not. He has a set agenda and he demonstrates it over and over, night in, night out.
Ask Ted what a salafist is, and you would most likely get a very thorough lesson in the history of Salafism and the course it's on today. Matthews could stand to repeat some classes he may have slept through, in school. The biggest lesson he could learn is to drop the hack attitude and take a lesson, out of the Ted Koppel book of journalism.
Happy Veterans Day
Boy oh boy. Yesterday was the Marine Corps birthday bash. (Mustang may have an ice pack on his head today) But if that wasn't enough to celebrate, today we have Veterans Day.
To all Veterans of all wars (even those that saw no combat), thank you for your sacrifice and your service to this, the greatest nation on the planet. This is your day.
To all Veterans of all wars (even those that saw no combat), thank you for your sacrifice and your service to this, the greatest nation on the planet. This is your day.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Bush Approval Ratings Continue To Dip
Real Clear Politics has the latest poll averages for most (if not all) major polls, on the President's job approval ratings.
(Hat Tip for this link goes to Powerpundit.)
For the week of 11/3-11/9, they are as follows:
Not good, but let's put this into perspective.
The left can use this all they want (and they are) and it's fair game, because if the ratings were high, you can bet the GOP would tout them. That's just politics, as usual. That component always has been and always will be there.
Now let's consider the case of one, Harry S. Truman. The very name when mentioned will draw favorable reviews from many Democrats and Republicans, alike. "Give 'em Hell" Harry may have been a man of steely resolve and unusal candor, but his job approval ratings were 25%, during the Korean War. The impact of his presidency was never really felt, until many years after he left office. He could have run for another term and he started out, but lost the New Hampshire primary, then bowed out. (Source: USA Today. It's an old article but history shouldn't change, right?)
So, what's this all mean?
The left can have its time in the sun. They can get their exposure on these matters, thinking that it will further their destructive agendas to discredit the President at any cost, by any means available, both fair and unfair. And then, Bush will ride off into the sunset at the end of his term, with whatever poll numbers he will have, without facing another election and travelling around with his dad and Bill, after disasters.
But at some point along the way, the Dems are going to have to come with what's known as a favorable selling point these days, called an idea. Some where along the way, the Dems will need to stop campaigning against Bush and for, a system of beliefs and values, and solutions to problems they always criticize.
So you see, the Bush approval ratings really don't mean a damned thing, do they? History judged Truman pretty favorably, once the dust of the politics disappeared and people could put it all into the proper perspective. I highly suspect the same will someday be said for George W. Bush.
(Hat Tip for this link goes to Powerpundit.)
For the week of 11/3-11/9, they are as follows:
APPROVE - 38.5%
DISAPPROVE - 55.0%
Not good, but let's put this into perspective.
The left can use this all they want (and they are) and it's fair game, because if the ratings were high, you can bet the GOP would tout them. That's just politics, as usual. That component always has been and always will be there.
Now let's consider the case of one, Harry S. Truman. The very name when mentioned will draw favorable reviews from many Democrats and Republicans, alike. "Give 'em Hell" Harry may have been a man of steely resolve and unusal candor, but his job approval ratings were 25%, during the Korean War. The impact of his presidency was never really felt, until many years after he left office. He could have run for another term and he started out, but lost the New Hampshire primary, then bowed out. (Source: USA Today. It's an old article but history shouldn't change, right?)
So, what's this all mean?
The left can have its time in the sun. They can get their exposure on these matters, thinking that it will further their destructive agendas to discredit the President at any cost, by any means available, both fair and unfair. And then, Bush will ride off into the sunset at the end of his term, with whatever poll numbers he will have, without facing another election and travelling around with his dad and Bill, after disasters.
But at some point along the way, the Dems are going to have to come with what's known as a favorable selling point these days, called an idea. Some where along the way, the Dems will need to stop campaigning against Bush and for, a system of beliefs and values, and solutions to problems they always criticize.
So you see, the Bush approval ratings really don't mean a damned thing, do they? History judged Truman pretty favorably, once the dust of the politics disappeared and people could put it all into the proper perspective. I highly suspect the same will someday be said for George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)