Pelosi, Democrats Adjourn ----- Two Years of a Failed Policy on Energy
Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts have painted themselves into a corner on this critical issue facing the nation. She has refused to allow the vote for offshore drilling to even come to the floor of the House. The vast reserves that this nation possesses will go untapped as long as the Democrats are in control of the majority. In the meantime, we send billions of dollars to foreign countries daily while our own energy independence is shackled by a party that prefers $5.00 a gallon gas, and a broken economy.
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
"This is the message that the Republicans have to hammer home, especially in August when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid send Congress home without doing anything to increase domestic production. Rarely has a major issue produced such bipartisan consensus among the electorate, and even more rarely has it produced such obstinacy in the majority party in Congress. Gas price increases hit everyone across the board and make energy policy extremely personal — and the Democrats want to do nothing to increase domestic supply to correct for it."
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Friday Observations
NBC is bragging that this Sundays Meet the Press will be a full hour of Barack Obama exclusively........Who's surprised?
Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives still refuse to let any legislation come to the floor for a vote that allows American oil reserves be explored. Considering a gas tax hike.
MSNBC caption on this mornings "morning joe": Berlin crowd---largest of his campaign.
Andrea Mitchell reported this morning from Germany that the Obama campaign is upset because the Pentagon told Obama he could not visit the wounded soldiers because it would be a campaign and not a congressional delegation. This sounds like a nice spin to me.
McCain advances in recent polls
The Republican leads in Colorado, is close in Minnesota and narrowing the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin, the surveys say. The Democrat's 'post-primary bubble . . . is leaking a bit.'
By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer July 25, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is tightening the presidential race against Democratic rival Barack Obama in four key states, according to polls released this morning.The four polls conducted by Quinnipiac University in partnership with the Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com show that McCain is running slightly ahead of Obama in Colorado, is close in Minnesota and has narrowed the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin. Link
Sports notes:
The Milwaukee Brewers swept the Giants and the Cards in the last seven days forcing the Cardinals into third place in their division and the Giants into 4th. It should be pointed out the while the Cards are still ten games over .500, the Giants, (seven games out of first), are fifteen games under .500.
NBC is bragging that this Sundays Meet the Press will be a full hour of Barack Obama exclusively........Who's surprised?
Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives still refuse to let any legislation come to the floor for a vote that allows American oil reserves be explored. Considering a gas tax hike.
MSNBC caption on this mornings "morning joe": Berlin crowd---largest of his campaign.
Andrea Mitchell reported this morning from Germany that the Obama campaign is upset because the Pentagon told Obama he could not visit the wounded soldiers because it would be a campaign and not a congressional delegation. This sounds like a nice spin to me.
McCain advances in recent polls
The Republican leads in Colorado, is close in Minnesota and narrowing the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin, the surveys say. The Democrat's 'post-primary bubble . . . is leaking a bit.'
By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer July 25, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is tightening the presidential race against Democratic rival Barack Obama in four key states, according to polls released this morning.The four polls conducted by Quinnipiac University in partnership with the Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com show that McCain is running slightly ahead of Obama in Colorado, is close in Minnesota and has narrowed the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin. Link
Sports notes:
The Milwaukee Brewers swept the Giants and the Cards in the last seven days forcing the Cardinals into third place in their division and the Giants into 4th. It should be pointed out the while the Cards are still ten games over .500, the Giants, (seven games out of first), are fifteen games under .500.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The McCain Editorial Not Fit To Print In The New York Times------
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
John McCain
(John McCain submitted this opinion to the New York Times in a rebuttal to Barack Obama's op-ed written on the 14th of July. The Times has rejected McCains rebuttal because "it did not mirror Obama's text. "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece."
Unabashed Bias
More at Hot Air
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
John McCain
(John McCain submitted this opinion to the New York Times in a rebuttal to Barack Obama's op-ed written on the 14th of July. The Times has rejected McCains rebuttal because "it did not mirror Obama's text. "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece."
Unabashed Bias
More at Hot Air
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has posted a story that includes a Vets for Freedom Ad that provides further evidence that many in Washington got the liberation of Iraq wrong:
"Vets for Freedom continues their efforts to push for a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq with their latest ad, “Some in Washington”. The ad produces quotes from notables such as Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Obama’s latest BFF and Iraq tripmate Chuck Hagel all declaring the surge a failure before it even started and the war lost. The veterans then introduce headlines from this year proclaiming how wrong these “leaders” turned out to be:" Link
Although Mr. Morrissey pointed out the obvious losers that fought against this war for political gain, I thought he left out a crucial body that contributed to the cause of defeatism:
Mr. Morrissey,
"Some how I think you do this story a sizable disservice by not including the constant “loser” mentality that emulated from the House of Representatives and their pathetic “leader”—-Nancy Pelosi. How many times did that woman attempt to appease her anti-war constituents by allowing defeatist legislation come to the floor? If any one should be run out of Washington for aiding and abetting the enemy, Pelosi certainly fits the bill."
Rovin on July 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
A friend from Captain's Quarters, (and now commenter at HA) slightly disagress with my analysis:
“If any one should be run out of Washington for aiding and abetting the enemy, Pelosi certainly fits the bill.”
Run out of Washington? The incompetent and corrupt traitor Pelosi deserves to be dragged off to Leavenworth in chains and put on trial for her utterly worthless life.
The French monarchs were effective state stewards compared to the Democrats we have in Congress and look what happened to them.
NoDonkey on July 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM
"Vets for Freedom continues their efforts to push for a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq with their latest ad, “Some in Washington”. The ad produces quotes from notables such as Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Obama’s latest BFF and Iraq tripmate Chuck Hagel all declaring the surge a failure before it even started and the war lost. The veterans then introduce headlines from this year proclaiming how wrong these “leaders” turned out to be:" Link
Although Mr. Morrissey pointed out the obvious losers that fought against this war for political gain, I thought he left out a crucial body that contributed to the cause of defeatism:
Mr. Morrissey,
"Some how I think you do this story a sizable disservice by not including the constant “loser” mentality that emulated from the House of Representatives and their pathetic “leader”—-Nancy Pelosi. How many times did that woman attempt to appease her anti-war constituents by allowing defeatist legislation come to the floor? If any one should be run out of Washington for aiding and abetting the enemy, Pelosi certainly fits the bill."
Rovin on July 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM
A friend from Captain's Quarters, (and now commenter at HA) slightly disagress with my analysis:
“If any one should be run out of Washington for aiding and abetting the enemy, Pelosi certainly fits the bill.”
Run out of Washington? The incompetent and corrupt traitor Pelosi deserves to be dragged off to Leavenworth in chains and put on trial for her utterly worthless life.
The French monarchs were effective state stewards compared to the Democrats we have in Congress and look what happened to them.
NoDonkey on July 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Friday, July 04, 2008
Happy Fourth of July to All
Please go to this site to remember the true sacrifices our founding fathers made on this fateful day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)