Thursday, September 27, 2007
Posted by Jaylord September 27, 2007 10:37 AM
The Republicans can actually use this to their advantage if they have the courage. SCHIP also covers "kids" up to 25. Imagine the following commercial, a loose parody of the AFLAC commercial featuring the guy with his arm in a cast and the duck paying all his bills, even the paying for the Chinese food being delivered:
Two guys sitting in a filthy living room on a ratty couch playing a violent video game, pizza boxes and beer bottles lying everywhere. The guys are obviously in their early twenties, scraggly facial hair, bad tatoos, unkempt hair and dirty concert teeshirts.
Guy One: (stops playing and shakes hand) Dude! I've been playing for three days straight and my hand really hurts! Time to go to the doctor.
Guy Two: But dude! You haven't had a job since you dropped out of college. How you gonna afford a doctor?
Guy One: No sweat dude! Hillary and the gang's got my back. They passed that SCHIP thingy and now I get free health care. Who needs a job when Hillary's taking care of you? (Takes a big swig of beer and belches out) Thanks Hillary!
Guy Two: (Also takes a big swig of beer and belches out) Yeah, thanks Hillary!
Both laugh and start playing the video game again...
But there's no way anybody on the right has the stones or imagination to come up with something like this. [:-(]
Standby Jaylord, you may see this commercial sooner than you think.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Amendment was to commend 'every' man and woman serving in Iraq, including Gen Petraeus, and it stated so in the amendment. The democrats didn't vote against the General, they voted against every person in the military..... (commenter at CQ)
Posted by docjim505 September 19, 2007 6:30 PM
Here are the problems with comparing Saddam / Iraq to World War II:
1. We know how World War II turned out: we won. What is the saying? "Victory has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan." Since World War II turned out well for us, EVERYBODY thinks of it as "a good war". We don't know yet how Iraq will turn out; if the libs have their way, it'll be the worst US disaster since Vietnam (another war they scuttled).
2. Evidence of Hitler's evil is well-documented and widely known. He's been the ultimate villain in American minds since 1945, the undisputed Worst Man in History.* Saddam was an amateur compared to him, and there are no undisputed tallies of just how many people he DID murder.**
3. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20 / 20. Looking back at 1919 or 1925 or 1933 or 1935 or 1938, it's obvious that Hitler was up to no good and had to be stopped. We don't have that sort of hindsight with regard to Saddam.
So a few questions to starfleet_dude and the rest of you who stoutly maintain that Saddam was not a threat, that he was contained, that we were just a bunch of ol' meanies when we picked on him:
How many nazis were there in Germany in 1929, i.e. ten years before the German invasion of Poland? Did anybody but the most hysterical alarmist think that Germany, still bloody and battered from its defeat just ten years before, was REALLY a threat to world peace? After all, there were the various terms of the Versaille Treaty to ensure that Germany had only a small, defensive army. Germany was contained, right? And who was afraid of those doofuses in the brown shirts? Why would anybody think that Germans would be crazy enough to follow a gang of losers like them?
How big a threat did Japan pose to the United States in 1931, ten years before the attack on Pearl Harbor? Anybody know just how puny Japan's industrial base was compared to ours, even counting the effects of the Depression? What was the population of Japan relative to the United States? Why would anybody but the worst alarmist in the Navy Department EVER think that Japan would be a major threat to the United States? And who would ever think that the Japanese would be crazy enough to pick a fight with a country so much larger and stronger than they were?
Since libs doubtless miss the point, let me be explicit: the world is not static. The world is not predictable. The nation that is your friend today may be your enemy tomorrow. The nation that doesn't seem a threat today may kick your ass a year from now. Claims that Saddam was "contained" are hollow as we simply don't know (and, happily, will never have to find out) what he and Iraq might have done five or ten years from now. Would the sanctions regime have held together? Almost certainly not. Would Saddam have tried to get more WMD, including nukes? A safe bet that he would. Would the UN have stopped him? Don't make me laugh!
When you say that "Saddam wasn't a threat to the United States in 2002", remember that Nazi Germany wasn't a threat to us in 1932... but we were in a desperate war with them just ten years later.
(*) I've often mused about the fact that Hitler wins the title while Stalin finishes a distant third behind Schickelgruber and George Bush (or whoever the libs decide to hate on a given day). Stalin and his goons murdered far more people that the nazi regime did, yet many on the left still have fond regard for Uncle Joe and the USSR. I guess Stalin just had better PR (Walter Duranty, anyone?).
(**) Libs often sneer that more people have died in Iraq as a result of our liberation than were murdered by Saddam. Question: how many people did Hitler murder, and how many died as a result of the "Great Crusade" to liberate Europe from his odious clutches? Was World War II therefore not worth it?.............
Discovered in Captain's Quarters. Thrusday, Sept 20th, 2007
(Special thanks to docjim for his deliberate articulation)
Zawahiri is nothing but a "Tokyo Rose" by any other name. Baghdad Bob attempted to paint a similar picture as Saddam's tenure was eliminated. Bin Laden is said to be preparing to declare war on Pakistan, which leads some to think his "welcome mat" may have worn out.
At home, the Democratic Party’s latest effort to damage/sabotage surge success in Iraq fails in Senate. Webb’s attempt to use his military prowess formulating a troop deployment strategy that he had to know would wreck havoc on command and control in the theater got "shot down" for the second time.
What the "defeatocrats" don't seem to come to grips with is that following the meter-maids in the mainstream media that promote defeat and surrender for the advancement of a political agenda is not what this nation will stand for. When our brave soldiers are pounding our enemies on all fronts and propaganda machine of Al-Qaeda shows it's desperation by finding "new" countries to declare war against, many will wonder how far we could have advanced in the war on terrorism if this nation were united in victory instead of betraying a general who has givin his life to protect this nation from harm............Rovin
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Just in time for the upcoming election cycle, the "curtain" will fall from the New York Times (Times-Select) vision of charging it's online readers to read the content of their prized "journalist". While the paper continues to fall in circulation and revenues, the Times estimates a loss of ten million from their subscription services. But what's a measly ten million when it comes to unleashing another 5-10 writers that can show how much they hate Bush and conservatives. It wouldn't be surprising if Soro's and Move-On paid the ten million for the buffoonery upgrade.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times Co said on Monday it will end its paid TimesSelect Web service and make most of its Web site available for free in the hopes of attracting more readers and higher advertising revenue.
TimesSelect will shut down on Wednesday, two years after the Times launched it, which charges subscribers $7.95 a month or $49.95 a year to read articles by columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman.
The trademark orange "T's" marking premium articles will begin disappearing Tuesday night, said the Web site's Vice President and General Manager Vivian
The move is an acknowledgment by The Times that making Web site visitors pay for content would not bring in as much money as making it available for free and supporting it with advertising.
"We now believe by opening up all our content and unleashing what will be millions and millions of new documents, combined with phenomenal growth, that that will create a revenue stream that will more than exceed the subscription revenue," Schiller said. (link)
There's that word again, unleashing. One would have to wonder is Michael Vick would approve of unleashing dogs with no other purpose than to attack. Of course, this may be a little different world out there to our "hidden" dogs of prey. I'm sure the Bush-bashing trio of Dowd, Krugman, and Friedman will have their "opinions" quoted in the lefty blogs like it was scripture from the bible. And, hopefully the conservative bloggers will seize the opportunity to expose the agenda of the liberal press that now no longer holds back their obvious bias.
Speaking of media bias, did you catch one of the leading cheerleaders of BDS, Chris Mattews, (taking Greenspan's comments out of context) leads the way supplying a talking points memo for Obama:
"Should we put Exxon signs up over Arlington Cemetery and Mobil signs up there, like they have at baseball stadiums?"
The "no blood for oil" lunatics are in full bloom with this latest work of "journalism". Grab hold of your keyboards folks. It's gonna be a long winter.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Try this logic out for size. If, when we added 20,000 troops and the strategy of "clear and hold" accomplished stability in those regions, then another 50,000 for a six month all out "super-surge" just might do the trick. Of course, the only way to add these numbers to the theater would mean deploying troops stationed in other parts of the world that would weaken the strategic positions for a short period of time. It would be like moving all your houses and hotels onto Boardwalk and banking on your opponent to land there. Once is all it would take and blammo, game over.
But this is not a game, I know. The real game is going on in congress with the democrats attempting to find some footing as to what's the next best thing to their cut-n-run policy that has failed as miserably as the Move-ON ad in the New York Times. Questioning the integrity of a 4-Star General with impeccable credentials may not have been the most brilliant move the Soro's/Anti-war crowd has made, but it sure puts their feet (stance) firmly in the cement. We know exactly where these cowards stand. And there's a bunch of democrats standing on the edge just waiting to see how deep the hole is before they decide to step in.
President Bush's prime time speech (6pm on the west coast), is said to be endorsing General Petraeus's recommendations:
President Bush will endorse the recommendation of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and and announce this week a withdrawal of almost 30,000 U.S. forces from Iraq by next summer, administration officials say.
Gen. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, testified Monday before lawmakers that he favored the reduction in forces as long as decisions about future troop levels were postponed until next summer as well.
The president's troop reduction, which will be announced in a nationally televised speech at 9 p.m. tomorrow, will be a few thousand less than the 30,000 advised by Gen. Petraeus, a White House official told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity. (link)
While the President hates playing the political games that democrats have employed for the past two years to advance themselves on the backs of our military, and an unpopular war, he also may be (grudgingly) looking out for his party's precarious position that has divided this nations ability to stand strong in the face of the bigger picture. The war on terrorism will not fade away with concessions and signs of weakness, (the ardent strategy of the democratic party), and the fact that Osama Bin laden is banking on this "weakness" to re-establish his own losses that have transpired during Petraeus's tenure in Iraq, reminds us all of the "bigger picture". Now if we could just get Bin Laden to step on Boardwalk, (or a one of his own IED's) during a ramped up offensive, maybe our "friends" on the left wouldn't be so willing to wade into the hole of defeat.
(Side note: I also believe the strategies that the democratic party has embraced may very well be a referendum on the impact of the 08' elections. Their promise of a "change in direction" (that they think got them elected on 06") on the prosecution of the war in Iraq did not include the defeat and retreat policies of failure into the hands of Bin Laden, Al-Queda, and the greater war on terrorism.
Catering/embracing the agenda of the anti-war left and the minions/lemmings following the garbage spewed by the likes of Soro's funded Move-On may be what it will take for a once respected party (that put the nations security ahead of their own political ambitions) and embrace political leaders that will not accept defeat at the hands of our sworn enemies.)
Wordsmith at Flopping Aces has a nice set of cartoons describing the state of the democrats "blindness" to the Generals report.
Gatewaypundit has a post up that shows how the democratic leadership is scrambling/editing their comments.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Brit Hume will have the "interview" of the year with Petraeus and Crocker on Monday night, 9pm eastern, (6pm on the west coast) on Fox News. Just days before the two are scheduled to report the progress of security in Iraq to the President and to congress, this interview should be an advance look into that report.
Why Fox News? The simple answer is.......why not. While the liberal left believes that Fox is nothing but a microphone for the right, one can certainly make the same argument that other cable networks like CNN, MSNBC, who daily spend their time echoing democratic talking points and pandering to the anti-war left's premise that this war is lost and it is all the fault of the Bush Administration.
Overall, (with the exception of talk radio), the mainstream media has hammered the Bush Administration with the conduct of the war, (sometimes justifiably), with 90% of their reporting being negative before the surge was announced last spring. That this figure has dropped only a few percentage points after General Petraeus took over operations that have proved to be successful military stability in several key provinces, the left leaning mainstream media has shown little regard for the progress. Even while key congressional democrats have made trips to Iraq and reported back that they indeed see this new "bottom up" change in the attitudes of the Iraqi people, (who have also tired of the insurgency and Al-Qaeda led atrocities and brutality), daily papers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have bled their newsprint with little but failure and destitution on America's war against terrorism.
Even more bizarre are the myriad of statements by some key democratic leaders that General Petraeus's report to congress will be nothing but fabrications. Richard Durbin leads the way with this attack by saying "We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same."
While S.A. Miller at the Washingtion Times reports (here) the obvious agenda of the democratic party, Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report:
"Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the U.S. Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
"If so, these statements completely ignore what's truly at stake in this war and suggest that neither the commander in chief nor our chief commander on the ground have any regard for the lives of the men and women fighting for this country," he said. "It's appallng, and I think the American people — rightfully — will continue to stick by the decisions of our commanders and troops on the ground when it comes to what is best for their safety and security."
While the cause for a successful solution to win this war that has (finally) shown real progress, the political intrusion into this battle will get nothing but uglier. Some of my sources say that the democrats are already too committed to failure to look at any positive results that Petraeus and Crocker will report to this nation. How they will react to Brit Hume's interview Monday night will let many know how invested in failure they are.
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has a post up that explains how the surge is effecting the media and politicos here.
Paul at Wizbang also has a post up that questions some of the journalist who may be lacking the experience to be called "journalist" here.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
A new RovinsWorld poll says 85% of liberal democrats are brain-dead. The poll also said that 75% of Americans believe that 9/11 truthers are descendants or clones of Jim Jones. When asked if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should be representatives of the Taliban or an Al-Qaeda led organization, over 90% responded positively yes. The 3% approval rating given to the democratic congress has been revised to 2.5% and is expected to drop further after General Petraeus's report next week. Another 85% of those polled also believe that global warming is a procedure to check Al Gores brain cells. 75% of democrats polled believed that Hillary Clinton's national health care plan was only reserved for WWF Wrestlers, Football Players, American Idol rejects, and China mainland fundraisers.
Look for a new RovinsWorld poll presented weekly until after Fred Thompson's inaugural speech on January 20th, 2009
Update: New Al-Queda polls shows democrats advancing in numbers while tail-spinning in U.S. polls. Bin Laden says he won't hold a chair at the table for long. Richard Durbin said today "these schedules may need a timetable to get where Osama wants us, but we're making headway." Durbin was also still looking up the word "surge".
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Grim at Blackfive has a post up on another positive improvement in Iraq:
The last battalion of Iraqi soldiers with 2nd Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division, withdrew from the Anbar Province city of Fallujah, Sept. 1, leaving the city’s security and stability in the hands of the local police and government.
Brig. Gen. Ali al-Hashemi, the brigade’s commander, said the time had come when Iraqi Police alone could handle law enforcement in the city. (read the complete post here)
While searching google for any major news media that has reported this significant improvement, I have yet to find ONE.