Monday, June 18, 2007   RETURN TO TOP

From Townhall.com TRACKBACK

READING HARRY
REID

~Fred Thompson. (America's 44th President)

Well, you've heard by now that Senate
leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds,
Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few
moments to put this in context.

First, Harry Reid voted for the war,
like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and
the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and
Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a
commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a
hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our
country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror
in Iraq is what's best for our country.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a
different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call
with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a
place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a
home.
And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the
administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into
supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war
intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an
entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.

I suppose that's easier for some than
admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister
Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a
few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of
his bizarre statements.

How could anyone possibly believe, as
Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of
touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that
Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military.
Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally
wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.

But Reid's comments are not meant for
logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a
failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is
that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported
gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or
not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical
war of will.

Fred Thompson is an actor and former
Senator. His radio commentary airs on the
ABC Radio
Network
and be blogs on The Fred
Thompson Report
.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP

Tonight, I was on Ben Miller's blog talk radio program. He had Jerome Corsi on. Corsi was well mannered, well spoken and wrong. He said that Bush has not done a good job on the war on terror. The nutjob who calls himself freedom fighter was only too happy to agree.

Well, if you are going to have an opinion, you should be able to provide material support for it, shouldn't you?

Bush has done a poor job prosecuting the war on terror? Compared to who?

Who has a better approach...a better plan? The Democrats? Give me a break.

Clinton did zero to respond to the threat. Neither did Bush's father. Jimmy Carter was completely asleep at the switch. Heck, even the Gipper didn't understand the enemy we face.

There has been one guy to decide to go on offense. Only 1.

Immigration plan? horrendous. Border Security? A Zero. But no one can credibly say that Bush has not been prosecuting the war on terror.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP



From the NewsMax.com Staff

Voters Disgusted With Democrats on Iraq War
The new Democratic-led Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its
failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war.
This is reflected in polls that show Congress - plagued by partisan bickering mostly about the war - at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it.

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."
In winning control of Congress from President George W.
Bush's Republicans last November, Democrats told voters they would move swiftly
to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
But they now say voters must understand
they need help from Republicans to clear procedural hurdles, override
presidential vetoes and force Bush to change course.


Democratic
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he explained this recently to anti-war
demonstrators. "'We know. We know,'" he quoted them as replying. "But we are so
disappointed.'" Biden, seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination,
said: "Voters are going to be mad with us until we end the war."
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some Democrats understand "we can only do so much."

"Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them," Pelosi, of
California, told The New York Times. Republicans have increasingly voiced
their own concerns. Yet most have stood by Bush - at least for now - and given
him the votes he needed to block timetables for withdrawal.
Republicans also are tweaking Democrats on other fronts, such as stalled efforts to upgrade health care and reduce the cost of college and energy.
They are even adopting the same line Democrats once used against them, calling this "a do-nothing Congress."
DEMOCRATS:
"If Democrats fail to reverse course, the dynamics in the 2008 elections may shift significantly, allowing Republicans to run as the party of change ... only two years after Democrats successfully campaigned on that same theme," Senate Republican leaders
told their ranks in a letter last week. Just as it was before last year's
elections, polls show most Americans believe the United States is headed in the
wrong direction.
"The primary reason is war," said James Thurber of American
University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.
But there are other reasons. "People have problems in their lives and they don't see the
White House or Congress dealing with it," Thurber said.

A Quinnipiac University poll this month found Congress with an
approval rating of just 23 percent. "People voted for change. But they don't
think they got it," said Peter Brown, an assistant director of the poll.
A
Gallup poll last month put Congress's approval rating at 29 percent. The number
had fallen to 21 percent last December, just weeks before Republicans yielded
control.
Still, the new polls have stung Democrats and put them on the
defensive. Democrats point to the nearly daily congressional oversight
hearings they have held into how Bush does business, many dealing with the war.
They also note that unlike Republicans last year, they passed a federal budget
plan.
But among Democrats' top legislative promises, just one, the first
increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade, has been passed by Congress
and signed into law by Bush.
Congress recently approved another priority --
a bill to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research. But Democrats
are not expected to be able to override a Bush veto.
On another high-stakes
issue, top Senate Democrats and Republicans were struggling to pass legislation
to overhaul U.S. immigration laws, despite attacks from many conservative
Republicans and some liberal Democrats.
Democrats intend to crank up
pressure on Bush with votes on proposals to revoke Congress' 2002 authorization
of the war, set a deadline for troop withdrawals and increase requirements for
troop readiness. Republicans will likely block them.
"We're disappointed the
war drags on with no end in sight, but realize Democratic leaders can only
accomplish what they have the votes for," said Brad Woodhouse of Americans
United for Change, a liberal group active in the anti-war movement.
Pelosi
and Reid wrote Bush last week urging him to listen to the will of people on
Iraq. "Work with us," they pleaded.
© Reuters 2007.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP


Looking through the news, I found a claim of such mind bending stupidity that I had to do a double and triple take. I still can hardly catch my breath from the dizzying new heights of idiocy that man kind has ascended to as a result of this, the pieste resistance of sheer, unadulterated daftness.

The truly, truly terrifying fact about this patent ignorance is that it was not uttered by one of the easily dismissible retard detractors of this blog. Nor was it bellowed by a leader from any number of left wing fringe organizations. It isn't even attributable to Sean Pean or Rosie O'Donnell.

No, the Mona Lisa of sheer stupidity was belched forth by no less a prestigious figure on the world stage than Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations.

I dare not even repeat it. I'll let you see for yourself. The only thing I can tell you is that we have just nominated it for stupidest statement in World history. (link)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP


From the USA Today.....

photo from USA Today
Poll: Clinton establishes sizable
lead over Obama
By
Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — New
York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has regained a double-digit lead over Illinois
Sen. Barack Obama in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll two weeks after the survey found
the Democratic presidential rivals essentially tied.


Among Republicans, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani remains
ahead, but former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who hasn't formally entered
the race, for the first time edges into second place over Arizona Sen. John
McCain.

The results show a Republican race that could be roiled by Thompson,
who is targeting conservatives unsatisfied with their choices in the field so
far. He is costing Giuliani most: A third of Thompson's supporters say they
would otherwise back the former mayor.

The Democratic contest generally has been stable, though a USA TODAY
Poll taken June 1-3 had shown Obama 1 percentage point ahead of Clinton,
30%-29%. In the new survey, Clinton leads Obama 33%-21% if former vice president
Al Gore — who has neither entered the race nor ruled it out — is included among
the candidates.


I Really have to be honest. It has been a long time since I have been this enthusiastic about a potential White House showdown as I am for the one that appears to be taking shape. I have seen many leftwingers who claim that Conservative Republicans are afraid of HRC.

I sure hope they continue to believe that.

Having a Shrillary vs Thompson showdown would be like Christmas morning. I just cannot conceive a more favorable match up for the GOP.

The more I fritter and fret that, somehow, the Democrats are going to wake up in time to nominate Obama or Edwards or (worst of all) Bill Richardson or Mark Warner, the more I am heartened by news like this.

The Democrats seemed determined to nominate Hillary and I, for one, applaud the gesture with all the enthusiasm I can muster! can I get some yard signs!? bumper stickers?

During primary season, I am willing to work just as hard for Hillary's nomination as for Fred Thompson's. Make no mistake, I am not just hoping Hillary is our opponent, I am absolutely begging for it to be so.

The latest polling puts Hillary's unfavorables at an alarming 49% and 47% of the nation says they will not vote for her under any circumstances. By contrast, a mere 31% say the same about Fred Thompson.

Put another way, Hillary's ceiling of support (the absolute most she can get, mathematically, under any circumstance) is 53%. Thompson's ceiling is 69%

If each candidate hits 2/3 of their ceiling, Hillary gets drubbed 46-35. If they each hit 3/4, it's 52- 40. To hit the magic 50%, Hillary needs almost 94% of her possible support. Thompson reaches the same level with a mere 73% of his support.

In a battle against Thompson, her heinous highness would have little choice but to go negative. This is a tactic that Fred would welcome.

Can you imagine these two in a debate? My guess is that Hillary would try to duck Thompson.

Of course, in a debate against McCain or Romney, her evilness would be much better suited. Even against Guiliani, she could hold her own. Yet, against the calm, reasoned and plain spoken Thompson, she would come across as shrill, crass and manufactured. It would not be pretty.

I am very seriously considering donations to both Thompson and Hillary. Can I do that?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|




RECENT COMMENTS

RETURN TO TOP

Archives