... I'm kidding. It's just that I bore the brunt of the "anti-Iraq invasion" arguments (although happily so).
Seriously, good post, well said.
I wish they'd get cracking on those hovercrafts though, it'd make doing this by camp fire a much more viable option.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sheesh...
Let me sum it up this way...
I am still pissed that the Bush Administration planned and executed the invasion, pacification and reconstruction of Iraq as badly as they did. From clew to earring, they had this operation botched, and any success that the US has seen there is fully and completely attributable to the training, performance and expertise of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines carrying out the orders from the White House.
That said, I have conceded that no alternative strategic course of action allows for greater US security in the region and abroad. Even if we had invaded Iran or Syria (something I thought was a real option) as supporters of international terrorism and enemies of the US (something both are, no question), we would still have had to keep troops and equipment on the Iraq border to keep Saddam in check, which gains us nothing in advantage and puts more troops at risk then necessary.
Removing Saddam from power and ensuring a democratically elected Iraqi government ready to protect individual rights (relatively speaking, of course) at the same time as securing free elections and a moderate government in Afghanistan WAS the best course of action for the US in the region. I am convinced that hindsight proves this point time and time again, and might even make a very strong case that it should have been done 11 years sooner than it actually was.
I now readily admit that the invasion of Iraq was the best course of action we could take... and I still assert that the Bush Administration failed miserably to communicate this fact to the American public and the leaders of the free world prior to the invasion. I am also convinced that the post-invasion planning of the operation (if there actually was any) was so poorly executed that it set the entire effort back and cost our troops and allies years of extra time in-country.
In fact, speaking of remembering old threads and debates, I would be willing to bet that 40, 50 or 100 years from now, our intellectual descendants will be sitting around a fire or leaning back on their personal family hovercraft parked in their driveway, drinking, smoking and assessing the Cheney-Rummy-Wolfowitz plans for Iraq the way we discussed the Italian Campaign of WWII. No one will then doubt the success of the operation... but instead will discuss all the things that COULD have been done better, and what that would have meant to the overall effort of the war on terror and American foreign policy in the early 21st Century.
I am still pissed that the Bush Administration planned and executed the invasion, pacification and reconstruction of Iraq as badly as they did. From clew to earring, they had this operation botched, and any success that the US has seen there is fully and completely attributable to the training, performance and expertise of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines carrying out the orders from the White House.
That said, I have conceded that no alternative strategic course of action allows for greater US security in the region and abroad. Even if we had invaded Iran or Syria (something I thought was a real option) as supporters of international terrorism and enemies of the US (something both are, no question), we would still have had to keep troops and equipment on the Iraq border to keep Saddam in check, which gains us nothing in advantage and puts more troops at risk then necessary.
Removing Saddam from power and ensuring a democratically elected Iraqi government ready to protect individual rights (relatively speaking, of course) at the same time as securing free elections and a moderate government in Afghanistan WAS the best course of action for the US in the region. I am convinced that hindsight proves this point time and time again, and might even make a very strong case that it should have been done 11 years sooner than it actually was.
I now readily admit that the invasion of Iraq was the best course of action we could take... and I still assert that the Bush Administration failed miserably to communicate this fact to the American public and the leaders of the free world prior to the invasion. I am also convinced that the post-invasion planning of the operation (if there actually was any) was so poorly executed that it set the entire effort back and cost our troops and allies years of extra time in-country.
In fact, speaking of remembering old threads and debates, I would be willing to bet that 40, 50 or 100 years from now, our intellectual descendants will be sitting around a fire or leaning back on their personal family hovercraft parked in their driveway, drinking, smoking and assessing the Cheney-Rummy-Wolfowitz plans for Iraq the way we discussed the Italian Campaign of WWII. No one will then doubt the success of the operation... but instead will discuss all the things that COULD have been done better, and what that would have meant to the overall effort of the war on terror and American foreign policy in the early 21st Century.
Twittering Persians
I agree with your observations. It is asinine in the extreme to attribute any sense of "freedom" on the part of the protesting Iranians to something Obama said. These protests and the general disenfranchisement of the Iranian youth predates even Bush, let alone this 5 month old presidency. Of course the sun did rise today, and the fish were plentiful in the sea if the occult of Obama still feels the need to attribute something to his majesty, Lord Obama the First, protector of the sacred crown of Orthos ... as you might of gathered I'm growing rather nauseas over the media creaming their collective jeans every time this guy kills a fly.
I would only add that I find the "non-meddling" soundbite, turned US policy, a far cry from the strength in "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" No one's asking that he send in a CIA wet work team to pick & choose winners & losers, but a clear unambiguous statement embracing the protesting Iranians would be more then proper. I shudder to think how disheartened this President would have made the whole of Poland in the 1980's. Of course asking him to be unambiguous is like asking water not to be wet. I just hope that he takes note of the fact that he is arguing on the same side as Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan regarding Iran ... but I digress.
That being said ...
I want to draw your attention to an old bone. We disagreed on the decision to go into Iraq in March of 2003 (quite loudly as I recall). And while you never questioned our need to stay & "finish the job", and even routinely said so, I am under the impression that you still find George W. Bush's (& that of the US congress) decision to go into Iraq as in error.
Now, let me from the onset concede that the administration never produced the nuclear precursors, let alone the an actual "bomb", nor large quantities of chemical & biological weapons that were used to build the pre invasion consensus. And I always felt that PR consensus they built during the lead up to the invasion should of included what they no doubt concluded was the long term remedy to Islamic terrorism (& what was always my defense of the Iraq invasion) - inject a true, functioning democracy into the heart of the Middle East as a vaccine which will spread throughout the region, ultimately choking off radical Islam. So given all that, a particular line of your last post caught my eye:
"I would contend that the sense of freedom and liberty that might be present in Iran is just as attributable to US intervention and success in Iraq as to anything Obama said or did. But you won't see that opinion voiced by the mainstream media, will you?"
I am of the opinion that when one considers the "slam dunk" Intel President Bush had at the time & combine it with what is the ONLY real long term answer ever offered as a remedy to IslamoFascism, that being democracy leading to private enterprise, jobs etc, that the president (& again, congress) would have been acting at the height of irresponsibility were he not to order the 03' invasion.
So Titus ... while I openly concede that their "consensus building" pre invasion argument improperly excluded the "tyrrany vaccine" theory, one I am convinced they did embrace privately (after all what else is meant by, "Freedom isn't America's gift to the world, but rather God's gift to mankind") are you prepared to gauge the invasion as "proper?" As in a proper response to the new war on terror we found ourselves in on 9/11? As in it was a proper strategy to replace with democracy a sworn enemy of the United States in violation of multiple Cease Fires, in pursuit of (by the accounts of nearly all Intel agencies in both hemispheres at the time) WMD's, whose regime was primely located at the heart of a region projecting terrorist acts of war upon the United States?
In other words if President Bush's aim was to both remove an "immanent" threat from the United States AND instill democracy at the heart of the region responsible for making war on the US, and IF Iraq sustains its' young democracy & it spreads (that last was a big "if", I realize that, thus the capitalization) do you think history (and at present you) will judge his actions as a net gain for the US & the world at large? Do you now think he was "right", whereas originally you did not?
Just curious.
Oh, post script: Understand of course, if you still disagree with the decision to invade I will need a plausible "rosier" scenario of the world & that region as of June 2009 with Saddam still at the helm (have fun with that one).
And, HAPPY FATHERS DAY to all!
I would only add that I find the "non-meddling" soundbite, turned US policy, a far cry from the strength in "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" No one's asking that he send in a CIA wet work team to pick & choose winners & losers, but a clear unambiguous statement embracing the protesting Iranians would be more then proper. I shudder to think how disheartened this President would have made the whole of Poland in the 1980's. Of course asking him to be unambiguous is like asking water not to be wet. I just hope that he takes note of the fact that he is arguing on the same side as Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan regarding Iran ... but I digress.
That being said ...
I want to draw your attention to an old bone. We disagreed on the decision to go into Iraq in March of 2003 (quite loudly as I recall). And while you never questioned our need to stay & "finish the job", and even routinely said so, I am under the impression that you still find George W. Bush's (& that of the US congress) decision to go into Iraq as in error.
Now, let me from the onset concede that the administration never produced the nuclear precursors, let alone the an actual "bomb", nor large quantities of chemical & biological weapons that were used to build the pre invasion consensus. And I always felt that PR consensus they built during the lead up to the invasion should of included what they no doubt concluded was the long term remedy to Islamic terrorism (& what was always my defense of the Iraq invasion) - inject a true, functioning democracy into the heart of the Middle East as a vaccine which will spread throughout the region, ultimately choking off radical Islam. So given all that, a particular line of your last post caught my eye:
"I would contend that the sense of freedom and liberty that might be present in Iran is just as attributable to US intervention and success in Iraq as to anything Obama said or did. But you won't see that opinion voiced by the mainstream media, will you?"
I am of the opinion that when one considers the "slam dunk" Intel President Bush had at the time & combine it with what is the ONLY real long term answer ever offered as a remedy to IslamoFascism, that being democracy leading to private enterprise, jobs etc, that the president (& again, congress) would have been acting at the height of irresponsibility were he not to order the 03' invasion.
So Titus ... while I openly concede that their "consensus building" pre invasion argument improperly excluded the "tyrrany vaccine" theory, one I am convinced they did embrace privately (after all what else is meant by, "Freedom isn't America's gift to the world, but rather God's gift to mankind") are you prepared to gauge the invasion as "proper?" As in a proper response to the new war on terror we found ourselves in on 9/11? As in it was a proper strategy to replace with democracy a sworn enemy of the United States in violation of multiple Cease Fires, in pursuit of (by the accounts of nearly all Intel agencies in both hemispheres at the time) WMD's, whose regime was primely located at the heart of a region projecting terrorist acts of war upon the United States?
In other words if President Bush's aim was to both remove an "immanent" threat from the United States AND instill democracy at the heart of the region responsible for making war on the US, and IF Iraq sustains its' young democracy & it spreads (that last was a big "if", I realize that, thus the capitalization) do you think history (and at present you) will judge his actions as a net gain for the US & the world at large? Do you now think he was "right", whereas originally you did not?
Just curious.
Oh, post script: Understand of course, if you still disagree with the decision to invade I will need a plausible "rosier" scenario of the world & that region as of June 2009 with Saddam still at the helm (have fun with that one).
And, HAPPY FATHERS DAY to all!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Let's talk Iran...
I watched the video of that very young woman, Neda, dying in the street with a bullet through her heart. Tragic in the extreme, and quite upsetting. The protest she was watching (watching, mind you... not participating in) was loud and boisterous, but in no way violent... and the chant being raised by the crowd wasn't "Death to the government" but "Let our voice be heard".
Needless to say, it spurred me on to read more and more about the protests and their participants.
None of the crowds had been spectacularly huge. Even in Tehran, the crowds had been averaging in the thousands... but by no means the majority of Iranians were taking to the streets. Most demonstrations were peaceful and without violence (although the last 48 hours has seen a marked increase in retaliatory reaction by the Basiji, culminating in the death of Neda), until the three opposition, "reform" candidates got together in Tehran and held a rally to protest the government's published results of the election. This rally ended up being the largest in Iran since the 1979 institution of the Revolutionary Islamic Republic.
Now, these three candidates are called "reformers" and "moderates" by many in the press... but I wouldn't trust a one of them as far as I could throw them. All were hand-picked by the "ruling" clerical council to have their names on the ballot out of the more than 240 TOTAL registered candidates for Iranian President, and no consideration was given to the popular support any of the candidates might have had going into the process. That tells me they were picked either because the council thought they couldn't win... or because the council thought they were "in line" enough to sustain council policy should they actually win.
Mousavi, who allegedly only won 34% of the popular vote, is the most prominent figure of the three. He is the one that people in the West seemed to have pinned their hopes on as a real reformer. Is he?
He has openly admitted that the Holocaust did occur and that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Jews in WWII was a bad thing. He routinely accuses Ahckmadinnerjacket of corruption and political abuse, and criticizes his regime for making Iran's international name a "taboo" term again. All well and good... I guess... unless you take into account the following:
He was an ARDENT (his words, not mine) follower and supporter of Ayotollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime, and still seems to have a special place in his heart for the architect and protector of the American Hostage Crisis perpetrators. He is extremely critical of Ahckmashitterpits' coddling to Obama and the new US Administration, fearing that new ties to the new US President will cause an increase in pro-American opinion in the country. He has also (but not very recently) asserted his belief that Israel has NO RIGHT to exist as a nation, and that all efforts by terrorists in Palestine and the entire Levant are rightious and blessed by God (Allah).
Moreover... many facets of the press are comparing what is happening in Tehran to what happened in China at Tiananmen Square 20 years ago. However, this isn't a call for CHANGE, this is a call for the implementaion of established laws and policies concerning elections in Iran. This is a call for the recognition that the democratic process WORKS and that it be allowed to WORK in Iran... possibly because it is still seen to be working in IRAQ.
THAT is a facet of this drama that I find fascinating. Some liberals are already standing up and stating that the situation in Iran is a shining example of why Obama's policies and promises towards Iran are working... because it is bringing a sense of freedom and liberty to Iran that wasn't there before. I would contend that the sense of freedom and liberty that might be present in Iran is just as attributable to US intervention and success in Iraq as to anything Obama said or did. But you won't see that opinion voiced by the mainstream media, will you?
Iranians are a proud and independent people with a long and storied history of national pride and identity. They don't want to be told what to do, say or think. They showed this to the world in 1979, but seemed to have forgotten it between 1980 and 2009. Now, with both Sunis and Shi'as in Iraq fairly represented in free and independent elections, they see what Ahckmacrazypants doesn't want them to see... that freedom is more than simply having Iranians running Iran. It is an individual person's ability to "twitter" to their hearts content. It is the ability to cast a vote and KNOW it counted towards a verifiable result. It is the ability to take one's earnings and savings and purchase goods THEY choose to purchase, be it foreign products or foreign newspapers and Internet websites.
Just watch... over the course of the next few weeks, we will see more and more spin on the "results" of Obama's policies towards Iran and its internal crisis. Objective observation, however, will show that very little of what Obama has done is that radically different than what Bush had been doing with Iran prior to the election in Nov of 2008.
Needless to say, it spurred me on to read more and more about the protests and their participants.
None of the crowds had been spectacularly huge. Even in Tehran, the crowds had been averaging in the thousands... but by no means the majority of Iranians were taking to the streets. Most demonstrations were peaceful and without violence (although the last 48 hours has seen a marked increase in retaliatory reaction by the Basiji, culminating in the death of Neda), until the three opposition, "reform" candidates got together in Tehran and held a rally to protest the government's published results of the election. This rally ended up being the largest in Iran since the 1979 institution of the Revolutionary Islamic Republic.
Now, these three candidates are called "reformers" and "moderates" by many in the press... but I wouldn't trust a one of them as far as I could throw them. All were hand-picked by the "ruling" clerical council to have their names on the ballot out of the more than 240 TOTAL registered candidates for Iranian President, and no consideration was given to the popular support any of the candidates might have had going into the process. That tells me they were picked either because the council thought they couldn't win... or because the council thought they were "in line" enough to sustain council policy should they actually win.
Mousavi, who allegedly only won 34% of the popular vote, is the most prominent figure of the three. He is the one that people in the West seemed to have pinned their hopes on as a real reformer. Is he?
He has openly admitted that the Holocaust did occur and that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Jews in WWII was a bad thing. He routinely accuses Ahckmadinnerjacket of corruption and political abuse, and criticizes his regime for making Iran's international name a "taboo" term again. All well and good... I guess... unless you take into account the following:
He was an ARDENT (his words, not mine) follower and supporter of Ayotollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime, and still seems to have a special place in his heart for the architect and protector of the American Hostage Crisis perpetrators. He is extremely critical of Ahckmashitterpits' coddling to Obama and the new US Administration, fearing that new ties to the new US President will cause an increase in pro-American opinion in the country. He has also (but not very recently) asserted his belief that Israel has NO RIGHT to exist as a nation, and that all efforts by terrorists in Palestine and the entire Levant are rightious and blessed by God (Allah).
Moreover... many facets of the press are comparing what is happening in Tehran to what happened in China at Tiananmen Square 20 years ago. However, this isn't a call for CHANGE, this is a call for the implementaion of established laws and policies concerning elections in Iran. This is a call for the recognition that the democratic process WORKS and that it be allowed to WORK in Iran... possibly because it is still seen to be working in IRAQ.
THAT is a facet of this drama that I find fascinating. Some liberals are already standing up and stating that the situation in Iran is a shining example of why Obama's policies and promises towards Iran are working... because it is bringing a sense of freedom and liberty to Iran that wasn't there before. I would contend that the sense of freedom and liberty that might be present in Iran is just as attributable to US intervention and success in Iraq as to anything Obama said or did. But you won't see that opinion voiced by the mainstream media, will you?
Iranians are a proud and independent people with a long and storied history of national pride and identity. They don't want to be told what to do, say or think. They showed this to the world in 1979, but seemed to have forgotten it between 1980 and 2009. Now, with both Sunis and Shi'as in Iraq fairly represented in free and independent elections, they see what Ahckmacrazypants doesn't want them to see... that freedom is more than simply having Iranians running Iran. It is an individual person's ability to "twitter" to their hearts content. It is the ability to cast a vote and KNOW it counted towards a verifiable result. It is the ability to take one's earnings and savings and purchase goods THEY choose to purchase, be it foreign products or foreign newspapers and Internet websites.
Just watch... over the course of the next few weeks, we will see more and more spin on the "results" of Obama's policies towards Iran and its internal crisis. Objective observation, however, will show that very little of what Obama has done is that radically different than what Bush had been doing with Iran prior to the election in Nov of 2008.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
We might be mutes...
... but the Left is, indeed, DEAF. That will be their downfall.
No matter how loudly the conservative right chooses to get, they will continue to be ignored and dismissed as "right-wing crackpots". No blame will ever be attributed to their failed policies (example: Iran, North Korea, massive spending, higher taxes, etc) and no past policy of conservative design can possibly be referred to as a "success"... no matter WHO it is showing the evidence.
Baddboy is correct, and it is depressing, but I am far less pessimistic than he is (at least in his last post). The Left will (in fact, they have already begun to) alienate enough of the general population with their radical changes and agendas to spread the discontentment of the conservative right to all quarters of American society... especially when the "bill" for all this change comes due in the next two years.
Baddboy's comparison with the modern liberal media bias and the McCarthy Era is apt, even if it is seen by the Left as one-sided. Any voicing or support for traditional conservative values or policies will be seen by those who control the Left as "reactionary" and "right wing"... but the more those values and policies are discussed by the radio giants, the more center-right news outlets, and the few conservative media sources (more and more the cable TV programs and channels) will convince the "moderate" majority in America that Obama and the Left are WRONG. Of this, I am convinced.
So many people at my place of employment point to their paychecks as evidence of the "change" Obama promised. Yes, I see the extra $19.73 I get to keep in my check each week (we are paid weekly here) because of the reduced deduction schedule he introduced early in his first 100 days... but what THEY don't see is that this isn't a tax CUT, it is a tax CREDIT... and we will ALL be liable for the difference in our tax bill NEXT YEAR. Where is the savings in that? Is that the basis for Obama's fiscal policies? Why pay NOW what you can pay TOMORROW? Isn't that what got America into the financial problems we see all around us today?
Mark my words... Obama and the Left's support will dry up and blow away as soon as the COST of their programs and policies are made evident to the majority of Americans. Perhaps Oprah and Gates and Soros don't sweat the increase in tax burden such measures MUST eventually bring... but John Q. Public will resent them very much indeed, and far sooner than Obama, Reid and Pelosi might think.
No matter how loudly the conservative right chooses to get, they will continue to be ignored and dismissed as "right-wing crackpots". No blame will ever be attributed to their failed policies (example: Iran, North Korea, massive spending, higher taxes, etc) and no past policy of conservative design can possibly be referred to as a "success"... no matter WHO it is showing the evidence.
Baddboy is correct, and it is depressing, but I am far less pessimistic than he is (at least in his last post). The Left will (in fact, they have already begun to) alienate enough of the general population with their radical changes and agendas to spread the discontentment of the conservative right to all quarters of American society... especially when the "bill" for all this change comes due in the next two years.
Baddboy's comparison with the modern liberal media bias and the McCarthy Era is apt, even if it is seen by the Left as one-sided. Any voicing or support for traditional conservative values or policies will be seen by those who control the Left as "reactionary" and "right wing"... but the more those values and policies are discussed by the radio giants, the more center-right news outlets, and the few conservative media sources (more and more the cable TV programs and channels) will convince the "moderate" majority in America that Obama and the Left are WRONG. Of this, I am convinced.
So many people at my place of employment point to their paychecks as evidence of the "change" Obama promised. Yes, I see the extra $19.73 I get to keep in my check each week (we are paid weekly here) because of the reduced deduction schedule he introduced early in his first 100 days... but what THEY don't see is that this isn't a tax CUT, it is a tax CREDIT... and we will ALL be liable for the difference in our tax bill NEXT YEAR. Where is the savings in that? Is that the basis for Obama's fiscal policies? Why pay NOW what you can pay TOMORROW? Isn't that what got America into the financial problems we see all around us today?
Mark my words... Obama and the Left's support will dry up and blow away as soon as the COST of their programs and policies are made evident to the majority of Americans. Perhaps Oprah and Gates and Soros don't sweat the increase in tax burden such measures MUST eventually bring... but John Q. Public will resent them very much indeed, and far sooner than Obama, Reid and Pelosi might think.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The saddest thing is that we are not deaf but mute
My wife and I were talking this morning about the state of things...good, bad, right, wrong and indifferent and she mentioned that she had watched a story about the Dixie Chicks and how they still haven't recovered from Natalies statements in England. It doesn't bother me that she still has to suffer from airing out our dirty laundry overseas but one observation I did make was that the POTUS has been doing that since he took office. Well one thing lead to another and I think I may have come up with another observation that just makes me want to weep. The liberals in Hollywood have no problem speaking up about what they believe is wrong with government but the Hollywood conservatives are silent. Where are those voices? I think they are scared to speak their mind for fear they will be blacklisted. Are we in a new era of Mcarthyism (SP?)? Is having a different view than that of the liberal media and government so bad that we have to worry if we can keep our jobs of live in our current neighborhoods withour fear of liberal retribution. Since when did having traditional Christian Conservative values make you the bad guy. Why do I, living in South Mississippi have to live my life by the misguided values of people living in San Francisco, NYC, Portland or Chicago?
When are the conservatives with the stage to speak to large numbers going to start speaking up and saying what they think. When are they going to start helping level the playing field. I don't like the idea that tv and radio personalities have decided to chime in but it is so lopsided that there really is no other side of the story being told.
Just my 2 cents
Baddboy
When are the conservatives with the stage to speak to large numbers going to start speaking up and saying what they think. When are they going to start helping level the playing field. I don't like the idea that tv and radio personalities have decided to chime in but it is so lopsided that there really is no other side of the story being told.
Just my 2 cents
Baddboy
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The sum of all conservative fears.
In addition to the flat out nationalization of 2 out of the 3 big US car companies; the back door nationalizing of multiple major financial institutions; the expiration of the Bush tax cuts; & unsustainable spending & debt that will eventually reach an 80% to GDP ratio (on par with the best of the banana republics the world over), we can now add three more delectable Marxist entrees ...
1.) For the dining pleasure of all you Bolshevik fans out there, a new "Pay Czar" is being named. This "pay master" as he has been referred to will cap CEO salaries of bail out recipient companies in the short term & aim to do the same with all CEO salaries in the long term (& that's not my editorializing). The PoTUS illuminated: "These types of high salaries and bonuses are what contributed to the financial crisis in the first place." Does that sound like a man intent on stopping with a few bail out banks?
2.) The FBI, having skilled interrogators, has been working with military commanders since soon after the invasion of Afghanistan in order to illicit information needed for battlefield operations. But for the first time we will now mirandize captured enemy combatants. Yes goat head-tossing sports fans! The orders were quietly issued by Obama via the DOJ to read them their rights ... can you imagine? You catch an information rich prime terror target on the field of battle and the first thing you have to tell him as you start the interrogation is "you have the right to remain silent." That ought to work out just peachy. One must realize this is a prelude to opening up the plethora of due process requirements, up to and including compelling the soldiers that captured a given terrorist to appear as a witnesses in court! This is clearly a toss back to a 9/10 mentality, viewing the war on terror (quite literally given this is occurring IN theater) as a law enforcement mandate. And worse, it will surely cost some soldier's their life, as this was our method to garnering actionable battlefield Intel.
3.) President Obama will announce within days the socialization of medicine within the US. Republicans on the Hill are "stunned" at the sweeping magnitude of "change" being offered by the administration with almost no input from Sr. GOP members. And "Obamacare" is not included in his reinstituting "pay go" or pay as you go, noting the source of the revenue for any new spending. Which is a fiscal mirage concerning this president, a rouse, an excuse to justify raising taxes be it the VAT or, and they're serious about this, taxing the value of your current private health care insurance as income.
And I should mention at this point the administration asserts they have already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days; and given a renewed effort to ramp up the rate "stimulus" dollars will be flying out the door, they claim they will do the same for 600,000 more jobs over the next 100 days.
Uh huh ... is it just me or did unemployment climb from 8% to 9.4% since he took the oath of office? So the number can go up ... but ... still down ... umm, what?? Can I get a list of these jobs? I find this curious in the extreme because even if you believe (and it does take a notable amount of "faith") Keynesian economics works, only $44 billion of the $787 billion has even been spent as of yet. Of course I can't "disprove" his numbers if they'll give no specifics nor source. So if that's the standard I am here today to proudly proclaim that Bush stopped 900 trillion terrorist attacks because potential Jihadists were so scared by "shock & awe", making Iraq justifiable to the most doubting of eyes. How's that Barry? I think I like your rather inventive "neo-success bar."
So there you have it.
Surely it wont be long until Christmas is moved to May 1st ... viva la change!
1.) For the dining pleasure of all you Bolshevik fans out there, a new "Pay Czar" is being named. This "pay master" as he has been referred to will cap CEO salaries of bail out recipient companies in the short term & aim to do the same with all CEO salaries in the long term (& that's not my editorializing). The PoTUS illuminated: "These types of high salaries and bonuses are what contributed to the financial crisis in the first place." Does that sound like a man intent on stopping with a few bail out banks?
2.) The FBI, having skilled interrogators, has been working with military commanders since soon after the invasion of Afghanistan in order to illicit information needed for battlefield operations. But for the first time we will now mirandize captured enemy combatants. Yes goat head-tossing sports fans! The orders were quietly issued by Obama via the DOJ to read them their rights ... can you imagine? You catch an information rich prime terror target on the field of battle and the first thing you have to tell him as you start the interrogation is "you have the right to remain silent." That ought to work out just peachy. One must realize this is a prelude to opening up the plethora of due process requirements, up to and including compelling the soldiers that captured a given terrorist to appear as a witnesses in court! This is clearly a toss back to a 9/10 mentality, viewing the war on terror (quite literally given this is occurring IN theater) as a law enforcement mandate. And worse, it will surely cost some soldier's their life, as this was our method to garnering actionable battlefield Intel.
3.) President Obama will announce within days the socialization of medicine within the US. Republicans on the Hill are "stunned" at the sweeping magnitude of "change" being offered by the administration with almost no input from Sr. GOP members. And "Obamacare" is not included in his reinstituting "pay go" or pay as you go, noting the source of the revenue for any new spending. Which is a fiscal mirage concerning this president, a rouse, an excuse to justify raising taxes be it the VAT or, and they're serious about this, taxing the value of your current private health care insurance as income.
And I should mention at this point the administration asserts they have already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days; and given a renewed effort to ramp up the rate "stimulus" dollars will be flying out the door, they claim they will do the same for 600,000 more jobs over the next 100 days.
Uh huh ... is it just me or did unemployment climb from 8% to 9.4% since he took the oath of office? So the number can go up ... but ... still down ... umm, what?? Can I get a list of these jobs? I find this curious in the extreme because even if you believe (and it does take a notable amount of "faith") Keynesian economics works, only $44 billion of the $787 billion has even been spent as of yet. Of course I can't "disprove" his numbers if they'll give no specifics nor source. So if that's the standard I am here today to proudly proclaim that Bush stopped 900 trillion terrorist attacks because potential Jihadists were so scared by "shock & awe", making Iraq justifiable to the most doubting of eyes. How's that Barry? I think I like your rather inventive "neo-success bar."
So there you have it.
Surely it wont be long until Christmas is moved to May 1st ... viva la change!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
