Follow by Email

Saturday, March 31, 2007

The Arrogance of Pelosi, and The LWL

Hey folks,

I’ve been telling you for a while now, warning you on a semi regular bases. The LWL {Left Wing Looneys, for those in need of a little help in understanding} think THEY are the President. They truly think they have the power, the authority, and the approval of the American people, to attempt to STEAL the Commander and Chief office from the President. They truly think that THEY are the most important, and that the President must bow to whatever they say. LWL leader Pelosi, being the most delusional.

I have been telling you for a while, that they will stop at nothing to "Get Bush."They will sacrifice our troops, our safety, and even the country itself, to get Bush, and stay in power. They do not care about you, me, or our well being. They proposed the largest tax increase in history, want us to surrender to our enemies, and destroy the President and assume his role. They are on a quest for tyranny. Their sheepeople out there are cheering them all the way.

Now the latest? Pelosi and crew are doing another world tour. It started with this statement by Communications Director for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, released yesterday afternoon:

"As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by
Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting
the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments
in the region, including Syria."


Then the AP/ Foxnews reported "White House Doesn't Support House Speaker Pelosi's Visit to Syria."

"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high-profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.

Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.

Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.


She doesn’t care. She wants to create as many problems for President Bush as she can. She wants these world leaders to look at the LWL as the is all and end all, and look at Bush as the world’s problem. She is simply attempting to be the President. She will most likely tell them that if there is a "Democrat" in the White House in 08, the world will be better. They will solve all the world’s problem. We will be friends of the world again. {Sigh}

Get this,

Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.

First, the only reason that Ohio Republican David Hobson is allowed to tag along is to make it, uh, bipartisan.


Second, I’ll let you come to your own conclusions on this one. It should be obvious to you, but think about it. "Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress."

Then this morning I read this from the AFP -Top US Democrat's planned visit to Syria angers White House by Olivier Knox

Aides to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi worked Saturday to prepare her groundbreaking visit to Syria that has sparked protests from the White House, officials said.

Syria's embassy in Washington hailed the proposed trip as "momentous" and expressed hopes it may change sorely strained relations with the United States, even as the White House denounced the visit as "a really bad idea" undermining US policy.

Again, since she is to ignorant to understand reality, nor cares, she is going anyway.

"Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him and have discussions about where they're coming from, but we do think that it's a really bad idea," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon, and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders,"

You forgot one Dana, they are also the friends of the LWL.

The LWL leaders are doing everything they can to cause, and are fully invested in our defeat. They are obsessed with power and "Getting Bush." They do not care about this country. They do not care about getting anything else done. They haven’t. Traitors?

Just in case you don’t click the link,

One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

They are walking on a microscopic thin line of become full fledged traitors to this country. If they cross that very thin line, which some can see that they have, they should be treated as such.
Peter


Sources:
AFP -Top US Democrat's planned visit to Syria angers White House
AP/ Fox News -White House Doesn't Support House Speaker Pelosi's Visit to Syria

Friday, March 30, 2007

Showdown Coming, Congress Approval Not So Good.

Hey folks,

It’s FRIDAY! It is also a busy day so let’s get right to it. First up, the battle heats up between Congress and the President. The Constitutional showdown grows closer. According to the AP, by Richard Cowan Thu Mar 29, 5:13 PM ET.

The U.S. Senate on Thursday defied a veto threat by President George W. Bush and joined with the House of Representatives in backing a timetable for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq.

In a mostly party-line 51-47 vote, the Democratic-controlled Senate told Bush to start withdrawing the troops this year with the goal of getting all combat soldiers out by March 31, 2008.

"The ball is in the president's court. We have done what we needed to do" by passing a bill with even more money for the troops and veterans than Bush requested, said House Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Yes, LWL Leader Reid, along with a bunch of pork to buy the votes. You DID do your part to try to cause the defeat of this country and open us up to further attacks. Congratulations, you should be, oh wait, you ARE proud of that. Moron. Now the President WILL do what he has to do. Veto it.

Democrats' moves to end the war through legislation kicked off another round of accusations from the White House and Congress over which would be to blame if money is not quickly delivered to the troops.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with House Republican leaders, Bush said, "We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded."

Reid countered that Democrats were following through on voters' demands last November for better oversight of the war. He said if Bush vetoes whatever compromise the House and Senate craft, "I don't know if you can find any president who has done more to undermine the troops."

WAIT! That is a bunch of bunk. More on that statement by Reid a little bit later,

Then the LA Times, By Noam N. Levey and Joel Havemann Times Staff Writers 9:04 AM PDT, March 29, 2007, reported this.

WASHINGTON — Within an hour of President Bush's most direct veto threat yet, the Senate gave final approval today to a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as part of a bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through Sept. 30.

The Senate today endorsed a goal of withdrawing U.S. forces by March 31, 2008. On Friday, the House passed a bill that mandates a withdrawal no later than August 2008, and sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet a series of benchmarks.

Leaders of the two chambers will meet immediately to reconcile the differences between the two plans, a process fraught with its own potential pitfalls because the bills were carefully crafted to draw enough support to pass.

Then they actually print the President's FULL statement.

"I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it," Bush said.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got our troops in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded; when we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders; and that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money."

But I love this one in the Christian Science Monitor. First they repeat what I, your’s truly, reported to you yesterday,

"The House and Senate bills have ... too many conditions on our commanders and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. And I have made it clear for weeks: If either version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it," Bush said Wednesday during an appearance at a Washington meeting of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

then this,

Some political observers suggest this moment may mark an important shift in how Bush works with Congress – and some see him likely to draw a line in sand in terms of willingness to yield to Congress's will on Iraq.

"The president is almost completely encircled, and his one avenue of escape is the veto," says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. "This may signal a period in his presidency when the veto becomes his principal communication with Congress."

{Laughing} "This may signal a period in his presidency when the veto becomes his principal communication with Congress." Probably. He has to keep the insane from destroying this country.

Ok I know I’m going long again, but this is important. LWL Leaders Reid and Pelosi both keep saying Democrats were following through on voters' demands last November for better oversight of the war. They say they were voted in to end the war.

First, the voters continually said they were voting for a "new direction" in the war. A "new direction" does not mean surrender. It could mean that, or MORE troops to WIN the war. It could mean a lot of things more than just cut, run, and surrender. The LWL are trying to make you belief it is. Second, it seems this new poll says only 20 percent of Americans give Congress a high approval rating of the job Congress is doing.{Laughing} Only 20 percent high approval rating? To listen to them, ALL American are on their side. Not quite correct. According to rasmussenreports.com Thu Mar 29, 10:32 AM ET

Twenty percent (20%) of Americans give Congress a good or excellent rating these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 41% say the nation's legislators are doing a fair job while 38% say poor.

Bleak as those numbers are, they represent an improvement since the Democrats have taken power. In December, just 11% gave Congress a good or excellent rating while 47% say they were doing a poor job. That was the last survey conducted while the GOP was in charge. Democrats are currently trusted more than Republicans on a variety of issues including how to handle the situation in Iraq. However, ratings for Congress remain far lower than for the President.

This can’t be good news for them. I bet you, after these votes, this number will plummet. More bad news?

Thirteen percent (13%) believe that most members of Congress are sincerely interested in helping people while 70% say the Representatives are mostly interested in their own careers.


70 perecent folks. So maybe they are not fooling as many as they think. One can only hope that the sheepeople out there wake up and see that the LWL Leaders ARE not on America’s side.

Peter

Sources:
AP -Senate approves '08 goal to bring troops home
LA Times -Senate approves war bill with timetable for troop withdrawal
Christian Science Monitor -High-stakes face-off over ending Iraq war
Rasmussen -National Poll: 20% Say Congress Doing Good or Excellent Job, 41% Say Poor

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Bush vs Pelosi and Reid They Lose

Hey folks,

This is going to be lengthy. I’m just warning you up front. The reason for this is unlike some other people, I want you to get the full story of what is being said. The LWL are so very proud of themselves. You know, they REALLY think that they are still important. They really think that the President HAS to listen to the rambling of there morons. He doesn’t. Let’s start with this from the AP

President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress lurched toward a veto showdown over Iraq on Wednesday, the commander in chief demanding a replenishment of war funding with no strings and Speaker Nancy Pelosi counseling him, "Calm down with the threats."

Bush said imposition of a"specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous" for U.S. troops in Iraq and he predicted that lawmakers would take the blame if the money ran short.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," he said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

I have been telling you this. If they were to succeed, cause us to surrender. All these soldiers lives lost, and any American lives lost in future attacks, will be the SOLE responsibility of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and all the rest of this bunch of gutless, traitorous, cowards.

LWL {Left Wing Looney} Leader Pelosi said, "Calm down with the threats." It’s not a threat. It is a promise. He will Veto. You are pointless and a waste of time and money. NO, most American people do NOT want to lose this war.

You know what folks, forget the rest of the news stories I was going to post. They all say about the say thing. So let’s just go to sources. When LWL leaders BOUGHT the votes to pass both the House and Senate verison of this bill, They gloated. Then Bush commented on them, and the LWL. Pelosi sent Bush a letter. Here it is.

March 28, 2007
Dear Mr. President:

Last week the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote passed an emergency supplemental spending bill. The Senate is poised to pass its version of the bill as soon as later today. Both bills contain much needed funding for our troops and our veterans. Both bills also chart a new course forward in Iraq. Given the importance and urgency of this legislation to our troops and our security, we are quite disturbed by your insistence to veto it.

Rather than work with the Congress to develop a bill you could sign, you apparently intend to follow a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops.

Both the House and Senate versions of this legislation address critical priorities that were either ignored or substantially under-funded by your Administration in the regular budget process. For example, despite the fact that our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003, your regular budget submission to the Congress did not include funding for either war. Your regular budget also failed to adequately address the urgent veteran's health care crisis, vulnerabilities in our homeland security, and the needs of thousands of victims of several severe natural disasters. This Congress is taking the responsible course and responding to needs that have been ignored by your Administration and the prior Congress.

The House and Senate bills also contain important provisions rejecting a continuation of the Iraq policy your Administration has pursued for more than four years. The Iraq provisions are based on the statements by General Petraeus and other senior military leaders that there is no military solution in Iraq. Their collective judgment leads to the inescapable conclusion that U.S. forces should not be trying to contain an Iraqi civil war. Rather, bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate believe strongly that the U.S. mission should be transitioned to counter-terrorism, force protection, and training and equipping the Iraqi security forces, and that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces should commence.


Mr. President, this is the time to sit down and work together on behalf of the American people and our troops. We stand ready to work with you, but your threats to veto a bill that has not even been presented to you indicate that you may not be ready to work with us. We hope that is not the case.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid, Majority Leader

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker


It speaks for itself folks. This is one of the stupidest letters I have ever read. Her attempting to justify this is pathetic. Here is what Bush said in response to the votes.

President Bush during his address the Cattlemen’s Association

The missions I described are only the opening salvos in what is going to be a sustained effort. Yet, the Iraqi people are beginning to say -- see positive changes. I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers -- they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here -- (laughter) --

"Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve."

I want to read something that Army Sergeant Major Chris Nadeau says -- the guy is on his second tour in Iraq. He says, "I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a soldier. The facts are the facts. Things are getting better, we're picking up momentum."

These are hopeful signs, and that's positive. Yet at the very moment that General Petraeus's strategy is beginning to show signs of success, the Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed an emergency war spending bill that undercuts him and the troops under his command. This bill would damage our effort in Iraq three ways. First, the House bill would impose restrictions on our commanders in Iraq, as well as rigid conditions and arbitrary deadlines on the Iraqi government. It would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces, if every one of these conditions is not met by a date certain. Even if they are met, the bill would still require that most American forces begin retreating from Iraq by March 1st of next year, regardless of conditions on the ground.

It's unclear what the military significance of this date is. What is clear is that the consequences of imposing such a specific and random date for withdrawal would be disastrous. If the House bill becomes law, our enemies in Iraq would simply have to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead picking how to use their new -- plotting how to use their new safe havens once we were to leave. It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C. to be dictating arbitrary time lines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away. (Applause.)

I want to read to you what a major newspaper editorial page said -- and by the way, this editorial page, like, generally not singing my praises -- (laughter) -- "Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings -- or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy." (Applause.)

Second, the House bill also undermines the Iraqi government, and contradicts the Democrats' claim that they simply want to help the Iraqis solve their own problems. For example, the House bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet arbitrary deadlines.

The Democrats cannot have it both ways. They can't say that the Iraqis must do more, and then take away the funds that will help them do so. Iraq is a young democracy. It is fighting for its survival in a region that is vital to our security. The lesson of September the 11th must not be forgot. To cut off support for the security forces would put our own security at risk.

Third, the House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers. These may be emergencies, they may be problems, but they can be addressed in the normal course of business. They don't need to be added on to a bill that's supporting our troops. There's $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' salaries and expense accounts. I don't know what that is -- (laughter) -- but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America. (Applause.)

This week the Senate is considering a version that is no better. The Senate bill sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal. It also undermines the Iraqi government's ability to take more responsibility for their own country by cutting funds for Iraqi reconstruction and law enforcement. And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending.

The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all these matters may be important matters. They don't need to be loaded on to a bill that is an emergency spending bill for our troops. There's $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works. (Laughter.) I'm not kidding you. (Laughter.)

Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. (Applause.) And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it. (Applause.) It is also clear from the strong opposition in both houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.

Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible. (Applause.) Our troops in Iraq deserve the full support of the Congress and the full support of this nation. (Applause.)

I’m WAY out of time here, but read these both over and over again if you have to. The bottom line here is, the LWL cannot afford for us to win this war. The surge IS working. This is why they are stepping up their attacks on Bush. The President? He is doing his job, keeping you, me, and yes, even this traitorous group of leaders, safe. They, the LWL, are using the men and women in the military as pawns to an end.
Peter

Sources,
AP- Bush demands war bill with no strings
Nancy Pelosi
The President

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Speed Voting, Polibowl

Hey folks,

Happy Wednesday to you. I have a question for you.

"Are you ready? No, I said ARE YOU READY?!?!? Then, for the boys and girls, children of all ages, Let’s get ready to,,,,, VOTE!!!" Dant, dant ,dant, tadant {Music playing}

Some of you got that.{Smile} It all started like this by this statement, or at least got a major push, by Gov. Schwarzenegger of California

"Holding our presidential primaries in June used to mean nominees were locked before we ever had a chance to vote. I'm happy to say these days are over. We will get the respect California deserves."

He is talking about "Super Size" Tuesday, February 5. This is where, so far 23, now perhaps 24, states will hold their 2008 Presidential Primary. A friend of mine pointed out this article from the Hartford Courant, a news paper out of Connecticut.

12:46 PM EDT, March 27, 2007 By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff Writer

Connecticut would join the national stampede to an early presidential primary next year under a plan endorsed today by top officials of both parties.

The 2008 primary now scheduled for March 4 would be held Feb. 5, when 22 other states, including California, are scheduled to hold a primary or caucus.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz bemoaned the trend toward early primaries, but she said the presidential nominations will be settled on Feb. 5.

Any primaries after that day will be irrelevant, she said.

"Connecticut didn't start this tidal wave, but we're going to ride it for now," Bysiewicz said.


Bysiewicz was joined at a press conference to endorse the plan by Republican State Chairman Chris Healy, a representative of Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo, key legislators and the advocacy groups, Connecticut Common Cause and Democracy Works.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she would favor any change that would make Connecticut more relevant to the primary process.

The legislature's government administration and elections committee will hold a public hearing Friday on the plan.

Bysiewicz said she hoped that the national parties and Congress eventually would agree on a saner election calendar that would stretch out the presidential nomination process.

As Walter Shapiro of Salon.com puts it,

Is Arnold right -- and will the candidates suddenly start spending more time in Anaheim than they do in Ames, Iowa? Does the thicket of Feb. 5 primaries (Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Texas are other major states slated for that super-dooper, party-pooper Tuesday) mean that choosing the nominees will be a mass-participation sport for the first time in history? Will the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations end up being decided by money alone? Is it true that unless a candidate can raise $150 million for the primaries (three times what Howard Dean corralled to lead the Democrats in the early going in 2004), he might as well start working on his memoirs now, since he will never have to write about his White House years? (The masculine pronoun in the prior sentence was deliberate, since Hillary is the candidate most likely to set a fund raising record).

Seems this year, EVERYONE wants to run. I’ll add to Mr. Shapiro’s questions here. Could it all be about money and fame? Do any of these people CARE about the country itself, or just power? Now with the primaries being moved up, most likely by all states, we are heading to politics 24-7, 365. Will we start talking about candidates for 2012 in February 08? There are already enough states right now to decide the winners for 08.

According to United Press International,

WASHINGTON, March 12 (UPI) -- Candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential race are plotting strategy on how to campaign with as many as 23 states seeking to conduct primary elections on Feb. 5.

One of the front-running Republican contenders, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona told The Los Angeles Times he wasn't impressed with states rushing to the early date.

"I don't think there's enough exposure of the candidates the way that there used to be, having to go state by state by state over a long period of time," McCain said.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and aides to New York Republican Rudolph Giuliani are already focusing on California, Florida and Missouri, which are all scheduled to hold the vote on Feb. 5, the Times said.

What I think McCain means is that all you heard about in the mass media is Clinton and Obama. The lesser mention candidates need the set time to go out there and make themselves known to the American people. If all the times are moved up, this will not be fair to the rest of the field.

By the way. When IS the last time you heard much about the Republican candidates? Compare the two parties. Who gets the most coverage? And people wonder why I call some of the mass media, the MMD.

I said leading up to 06, which others repeated, this election was more like a Political Super Bowl, World Series, ETC. Now leading up to the big one, the 08 Presidential election, it’s even worse. Now it seems the trend is to not let all be known, just eliminate everyone in the field and deal with the two that the MMD, and the leaders of each party want to deal with. But then again, theymove it up, they will just start campaigning earlier.

Yes folks, get your peanuts, popcorn, and take your seat. Polibowl is about to begin.
Peter

Harford Courant- State May Hold Early 2008 Presidential Primary
Salon.com- So you think you know politics
UPI- Feb. 5 a hot date for 2008 U.S. primaries

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Scheduled Day Off



Hey folks,

I will not be in the office Tuesday March 27, 2007. Checkout these two articles, you may find them as interesting as I did.{smile} See you all soon.




AP-Report: NYPD tracked RNC-bound activists

Reuters-French scientists rebut U.S., Muslim creationism
Peter

Monday, March 26, 2007

Don’t Forget About Iran

Hey folks,

As the battle continues here at home between the White House and Congress, with the MMD throwing in their buck fifty, the war continues. One watching this whole mess is Little Hitler. Over the weekend, we learned that the Iranian military seized a British ship. They claimed that the ship was in Iranian water, which of course Britain denies. When asked if we were negotiating for their release, the White house said "No, the British were handling that." Then we learned,

Iran claimed Saturday that 15 British sailors and marines had confessed to entering its waters in an act of "blatant aggression," an escalation of Tehran's rhetoric over the confrontation.

The British Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador for the second time in two days, saying an under-secretary had spent more than an hour in "frank and civil" talks demanding the safe return of the sailors and Royal Marines, and seeking assurances about their welfare and access to British consular officials.

Iran's top military official, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said the sailors and marines were moved to Tehran and under interrogation "confessed to illegal entry" and an "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters." Afshar did not say what would happen to the sailors.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a "blatant aggression."

Notice he said, sailors and marines were moved to Tehran and under interrogation "confessed to illegal entry" and an "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters." Afshar did not say what would happen to the sailors.

Well then, according to all our Liberal and LWL friends, if they were tortured, you cannot believe their confession. Right? But as of this time the British have not asked for our help. They are their people and they are dealing with it.

Then on Sunday, Little Hitler himself made it well known that he could careless about the sanctions place on Iran by the UN. According to the AP

Iran announced Sunday that it was partially suspending cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog while hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the latest U.N. sanctions would not halt the country's uranium enrichment "even for a second."

Iranian state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying the additional Security Council sanctions imposed on Saturday "stem from the hostility by some powers against Iran."

"It is not a new issue for the Iranian nation. Enemies of the Iranian nation have made a mistake this time too," Ahmadinejad said, adding the new sanctions "will not halt Iran's peaceful nuclear program even for a second."

Did ANYONE really think the sanctions would work? I have been warning you folks longer than most . I’ve been telling you about Little Hitler for a long time. Now he is being paid attention to by the Mass Media, I believe, for two main reasons. First, they can use this for more attacks on Bush. It is all his fault that there is so much tension in the world. Second, to put fear into YOU. To convince you that we will end up going there and end up in another "failed war attempt."

By the way, have you seen oil prices lately?

Then just this morning, according to Reuters

A senior Iranian military official warned the United States against launching any attack on the Islamic Republic, a news agency reported on Monday, two days after the United Nations imposed new sanctions on Iran.

"If America starts a war against Iran, it won't be the one who finishes it," Morteza Saffari, naval forces commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

"Our people will not even allow one American soldier to enter our country," Saffari said.

As well we shouldn’t. A couple of planes. A couple of bombs.? Yeah, that will work. Not one foot of any America soldier should touch Iranian soil. Take out any possibility of them creating nuclear weapons with a few well placed bombs, no more worries. A couple of well placed bombs in Iraq would have ended this war in a few days. We would never have had all these discussion we have been having for the last four to five years,. Nor would we have lost more than maybe a hand full of our men and women in service.

The problem that President Bush has now, is he tried to cater to these lunatics known as the LWL from the beginning. He tried to fight "fair, and nice." We are in a war. Our enemies want us dead. Given the chance they will KILL us. I say we stop playing games with these terrorists and end this NOW, and I’m NOT talking about pulling out.
Peter


Sources;
AP-Iran: Sanctions won't halt enrichment
Reuters-Iran military warns U.S. against any attack

Sunday, March 25, 2007

IWA for Sunday March 25, 2007

Hey Folks,

Against my better judgement, the following is an open letter to the President of the United States, by, {The IWA winner} {Sigh} Sean Penn as posted by the Huffy Post.

Sean Penn Sat Mar 24, 8:16 PM ET


Four and a half years ago, I addressed the issue of war in an open letter to our President. Today I would like to again speak to him and his, directly. Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice et al: Indeed America has a rich history of greatness -indeed, America is still today a devastating military superpower. And because, in the absence of a competent or brave Congress, of a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands, it is you who have misused it to become our country's and our constitution's most devastating enemy. You have broken our country and our hearts. The needless blood on your hands, and therefore, on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security, and the dream that America might have been, once healed of and awakened by, the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Who care’s.

But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to "support our troops." Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more. Let's make this crystal clear. We do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families. The verdict is in. You lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen and most of all, our troops.

Now you don’t. What have YOU done to support them . Moron.

You Misters Bush and Cheney; you Ms. Rice are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings, incompetent even to fulfill your own self-serving agenda, while tragically neglectful and destructive of ours and our country's. And I got a question for your daughters Mr. Bush. They're not children anymore. Do they support your policy in Iraq? If they do, how dare they not be in uniform, while the children of the poor; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and all the other American working men and women are slaughtered, maimed and flown back into this country under cover of darkness.

LOL They are insane. Look in the mirror. It’s a all volunteer army. Like you, you gutless coward, maybe they just chose not too.

Now, because I've been on the streets of Baghdad during this occupational war, outside the Green Zone, without security, and you haven't; I've met children there. In that country of 25 million, these children have now suffered minimally, a rainstorm of civilian death around and among them totaling the equivalent of two hundred September 11ths in just four years of war. Two hundred 9/11s. Two hundred 9/11s.

Prove you HAVE and they have not. You cannot do it. Both the President and the Vice President HAVE been. Prove your statement. "Two hundred 9/11s" You’re an idiot.

You want to rattle sabers toward Iran now? Let me tell you something about Iran, because I've been there and you haven't. Iran is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime. Does it want a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Do we have one? You bet. But the people of Iran are great people. And if we give that corrupt leadership, (by attacking Iran militarily) the opportunity to unify that great country in hatred against us, we'll have been giving up one of our most promising future allies in decades. If you really know anything about Iran, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Of course your administration belittles diplomatic potential there, as those options rely on a credibility and geopolitical influence that you have aggressively squandered worldwide.

I cannot even find the words to describe how completely asinine this statement is. Iran is such a great country. Go live there. You hate America so much, I bet you would be much happier there. So would most Americans. They would love it if you lived there as well.

Speaking of squandering, how about the billion and a half dollars a day our Iraq-focused military is spending, where three weeks of that kind of spending, would pay the tab on a visionary levy-building project in New Orleans and relieve the entire continent of Africa from starvation and the spread of disease. Not to mention the continued funds now necessary, to not only rebuild our education and healthcare systems, but also, to give care and aid to the veterans of this war, both American and our Iraqi allies and friends who have lost everything.

So we are now to be the world savior? Rebuild our educational and health care? When were they destroyed? Just another anti-war statement by the completely otiose rabbling of an ignorant.

You say we've kept the war on terror off our shores by responding to a criminal act of terror through state sponsored unilateral aggression in a country that took no part in that initial crime. That this war would be fought in Iraq or fought here. They are not our toilet. They are a country of human beings whose lives, while once oppressed by Saddam, are now lived in Dante's inferno.

No comment {Sigh}

My 15-year-old daughter was working on a comparative essay this week (you can ask Condi what a comparative essay is, as academic exercises fit the limits of her political expertise.) My daughter's essay, which understood substance over theory, discusses the strengths of the Nuremberg trial justice beside the alternate strategy of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and I quote: "When we observe distinctions between one power and another, one justice and another, we consider the divide between retribution and reconciliation, of closure and disclosure." I can't do her essay justice in this forum, but at its core, it asks how, when, and why we compromise toward peace, punish for war, or balance both for something more.

Children learn what their parents teach them. Unfortunately for her, never mind.

This may focus another soft spot in the rhetoric of both sides. We're told not to engage in the "politics of attack." To "keep away from the negative"...Well, Mr. Bush, when speaking of your administration, that would leave us silent, and impotent indeed.

Yup. Because all you want is to attack Bush. All you want is to spread your hate filled massage. All you want is America to lose this war. Just like your heros, the LWL, you do not care about the brave men and women of the military. Their blood is on YOUR hands if we lose. The blood of any other Americans that die in future attacks, if we lose, is on YOUR hands.

So, in conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir: We all played nice recently at the sad passing of former President Ford. Pundits and players on all sides re-visited his pardoning of Richard Nixon with praise, stating that a divided nation found unity. But what of that precedent on deterrence now? Where is justice now? Let's unite, not only in stopping this war, but holding this administration accountable as well. Without impeachment, justice cannot prevail. In our time, or our children's. And let's make it clear to democrats and republicans alike that we are not willing to wait on '08 to hear them say again: "If I'd known then, what I know now."

Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents. It's a tragedy that the Democratic Party's leadership in Congress refuses to allow the House to vote on Barbara Lee amendment for a fully funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Elites circled the war wagons against this proposal, and postponed the day of reckoning that must come as soon as possible - a complete pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

There are presidential candidates who understand this. We do have candidates of conscience. As things stand today, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich, who has fought this war from the beginning. You might say Kucinich can't win. Well, we have an opportunity to re-establish the credibility of democracy as viewed by the world at large.

We can fire our current president. We can choose the next president. You and me, the farmer in Wisconsin, the boys at Google, and Bill Gates.

It's up to us to choose. Why don't we choose?!

Because, and thankfully, there are not enough of you nut jobs out there to matter.

Because you truly believe that people really care what you say, and because you truly believe that the President should listen to your hate speech, congratulation Sean Penn, you are the Idiot of the Week.
Peter
Behind The OPN Screen 30507

Hey folks,

Welcome to another addition of behind the OPN Screen. Where we simply update you on things past, present and future. Answer some of your question and just basically give you an inside look at the goings on here at the OPN.

First things past. This is also in answer to a question. "What happed to the "Just My Thoughts segment?" To tell you the truth, it seemed to be the least liked segment. Just rambling thoughts on my part that I thought you might like me sharing. This is what I aim to do here. Give the OPNers what they want. If I think something is really not working well, not liked, or you folks just find it boring, I’ll do away with it. In the recent weeks, I have found that the "Heath and Science" got a better response. So I will be continuing with that from time to time now. But never say never. You never know, I may bring it back from time to time, If I feel strongly about something, I will share it.

We are ever changing, ever growing, and striving for excellence here at the OPN. This is why it is important that you, communicate with me. You have the power to make or break segments . I aim to please. Well, sometimes. {Smile} You can always leave messages in the Comment section, email me at opntalk@netscape.net . Yes, whatever you email me is PRIVATE. It will not be shared unless I have your express permission to do so. Question, suggestion, complaint, or just a hi, feel free to contact me.

Present and future? Working on "OPN LIVE." First will be audio only then possibly the web video. NO guarantees. Also debating with myself on the possibility of another, completely unrelated "Faith Based" Blog. More on that to come. But some hesitation is simply the time thing. I do not want to start something I will simply not have the time to keep going.

Now let’s get to some questions.

"Pete, Why do you not just set a permanent schedule already!"

The last two weeks are a perfect example my friends. Let’s say I finally do. I come on and say, OK, folks, from now on I will be here Monday through Friday, having the Weekends off. Then on Tuesday or Wednesday, I can’t make it in, for whatever the reason. Would that not be worse? You get use to being here Monday-Friday, but Tuesday you check in and nothing. I would LOVE to have a set schedule, but this is one of the main reason I do not.

"Mr. Carlock, I was wondering how you decide who you use to post guest articles I see you have been on for a while and you said you have only done this twice. Surely you must have more than two who write something ‘worthy’ enough to be shared with all."

Are you applying? You can always check the comment sections. All comments except spam, are posted. Good, bad, and the ugly. I only censor spam. But to answer your question, I never was planning on it. But in the past, when talking about illegal immigration, I received and email from a Legal immigrant, who told an incredible story about her family. I felt it so strong the it should be shared. She gave permission and I did. Then came a comment that was so accurate about the TRUTH of the global warming concept, I had to post it. Truthfully, I post whatever I feel NEEDS to be shared most. But ALL comments are important and are always there for you, or anyone else to see. By the way, call me Peter, Pete, whatever. Don’t call me Mr. Makes me feel old.

"You say you do not tow the party line, but you seem like just another Bush lapdog."

Now I know this is technically NOT a question, BUT, I’m going to answer it anyway again. {Smile} For years leading up to this last Election I warned people the one man, President Bush having complete and total power, is dangerous. He had all one party controlling everything. They really would give him permission to do whatever he wanted. We needed balance back in government.

But then the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} started to and eventually DID completely take over leadership of the Democrat party. Now EVERYONE is stating to discover just how insane the LWL are. They truly are on a quest for tyranny.

Tyranny is micro management and control over every aspect of your life. This is what the Liberals strive for. They envy people like Saddam, Castro, and Ahmadinejad. Absolute power without accountability. They even line up to go visit these people. Praise these people. Even say we should talk to these people. We could learn from them.

Liberalism is an attempt to create an alternate reality, where liberalism is compassionateness. Where it is fair and just. Where those that have, should care for those that have not. It punishes independents, and rewards those that blindly follow. It stifles free thought, and tells you want to believe. Look at the war. The Mass Media Drones, lie, fabricate photos, omit truth, leak top secrete information, and post things they get EMAILED to by the enemy. They are in contact with them. Some of them have even become they enemy’s tool for their propaganda.

These people have completely lost it. They do not care about what’s right anymore. I can and will not support those that have turned into a gutless, do nothing, bunch of dullards.

The million dollar question this time around?

"How's Joshua? I notice you haven’t updated his pictures site in a long while?"

YES, I know. My fault. THANK YOU so much for asking. He is doing great. Can you believe he will be two in about four months?? I will update soon. As soon as time allows. He is a curious as ever. I’m still enjoying being a proud papa. I’ll let everyone know when the update is complete. I will try by next weekend to update the site.

Well that’s it. Join me next time for anther "Behind the OPN Screen." Don’t forget, you have the power. Keep in contact. You never know what you will see here. Take care and be well. Look for the "OPN LIVE" coming soon.
Peter

Saturday, March 24, 2007

The Battle Continues

Hey folks,

First, thank you to my Comment Checker for passing along the notice. Not that I really liked her little note, she meant well. I’ll forgive her this time. {Smile} But she was right, I’m back and here now. Also, those of you who have left comments, I have finally responded. Anyway, busy day, so let’s get right to it.

The battle continues here at home between the President and the worthless do nothing Congress. The battle has now taken many fronts. It doesn’t seem much like it’s going away soon. Congress is frustrated at the fact they ARE a do nothing group of stupid people. I cannot use the word idiots here, because they KNOW what they are doing, but they are incredibly unintelligent for doing so.

After the last three days, I have made an executive decision, I will now longer call them Sen, Congressman, or whatever. Well, some of them anyway. They no longer deserve any respect at all. The titles are worthy of respect. The positions deserve respect. But these Looneys? I will now address them as who they are. LWL member Murtha, LWL member Bidin. So on. Reuters, along with EVERYONE else reports

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday voted to impose a September 1, 2008, deadline for withdrawing all American combat troops from Iraq, prompting a quick veto promise from President George W. Bush.

Actual he said yesterday following the vote,

"Here in Washington members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job. The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.

They set rigid restrictions that will require an Army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

I will veto if it comes to my desk. And because a vote in the House was so close, it was clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing. It delays the delivery of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city. Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground. Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They made their point. For some, that is not enough.

These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The secretary of defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops, by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families. Democrats have sent their message. Now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment of decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men and women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops. And so do the American people."

OK, translation time folks, {Laughing} The President of the United States of America, just said to the United State Congress,,, Ready? "Screw you!" {Laughing harder}

They {The LWL} truly believe that this, as the President said, will force him to sign it into law. They are in essence, holding our men and men hostage, and demanding twenty five BILLION dollars, and control of the war. The President said "This bill has too much pork, too many conditions, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal."

Now to this concept that if they do not pass a spending bill, the war ends. That’s NOT true. General Petraeus laid out what will happen yesterday. He said if they do not approve the money, cuts will be made domestically. Training for new service men and women for domestic positions. Purchase and repairs for domestic troops cut. Upgrades for housing and other things for domestic troops. Then, that money will go to the troops for the war. EVEN if they cut funding, the troops fighting the war, will still be funded and protected. It will be an extreme hardship at the hands of the LWL, these worthless spineless, Left Wing Looney, cowards. But our troops in the fields will be protected from both their domestic and foreign enemies.

So? "Screw you!!" again.

Then today The Washington Post reports,

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

Of course? I can feel another "Screw you" coming.

The subpoena’s for Rove? and others if they {LWL} do not hear what the want in their moronic hearing on the eight fired Federal Prosecutors? Bush said, "not going to happen." what does that translate too? You get the point.

Yes folks, the battle continues. The battle also continues to heat up. But in the end we are delegated to simply saying, we will just have to wait and see.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters-House approves 2008 troop withdrawal from Iraq
Washington Post- House Likely to Pass Bill With Pullout Date
AP-Bush: Dems should drop partisan politics

Friday, March 23, 2007

The Edwards, True Faith or Brilliant Politic Move?

Hey folks,

Happy FRIDAY!! Did I mention? I love Fridays. OK, so the big news yesterday has put John Edwards up front and personal. Prompting all the news outlets, Politicians, and the American people, to start to analyze his decision to continue his election campaign.

It was, and I’m sure, will continue to be a heavy topic for the rest of the campaign. The Edwards announcement that his wife, Elizabeth’s cancer has returned, has set into motion a blizzard of thoughts, comments, well wishing and offers of help. It tugged on the heart of everyone. But some are not sure the true reason that they made this announcement.


Some are saying this was brave. Some say this was selfish on John’s part to drag her though this campaign even though she is sick. Some say that this is selfish on Elizabeth’s part to their kids. I even actually heard someone yesterday say, "How dare she run off and campaign for her husband now. She is robbing her children of the last days of her life."

Now, for those of you who may not know, they announced shortly after the 2004 presidential campaign that Elizabeth had been given a diagnosis of breast cancer. She underwent a lumpectomy and had some lymph nodes removed. On CNN, they have been replaying an interview Soledad O’Brien did with Mrs. Edwards in October 2006. She talked about the loss of the couple’s 16-year-old son who died in an accident. She talked about her Cancer and the fact that it went into remission. She said,

"I had the gift to know … I had the chance to beat this — a chance my son never had."

They fought it together, and they won. Now it’s back. They vow to fight it again. They vow to continue to campaign for the "Country we love."

Then you have those that question the timing, and motives behind the timing or this announcement. The NYT, in the last paragraph said,

Mr. Edwards’s campaign has been overshadowed by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, but he has been doing well in Iowa, where he has campaigned heavily for several months. A critical test of his viability as a candidate was expected to be the release on April 15 of the first quarterly reports for fundraising.

"A critical test of his viability as a candidate was expected,,," Translation time, "What the,,,,? Now we have to deal with THIS? He didn’t stand a chance. But NOW we have to deal with the emotion aspect of a women dying of Cancer, and a man fighting for what he believes in. Damn, how are we going to spin this one?"

Then you have this Blog in the Washington Post by Chris Cillizza,

Attacks on Edwards -- either overt or covert -- will be more difficult for his rivals to launch. There is no more sympathetic figure than a husband taking care of his ill wife, so it would be highly risky for any of Edwards's opponents to say anything but glowing things about him and about Elizabeth's strength under difficult circumstances.

He IS right about that.

What we don't know:

How the voting public will respond to the news that Edwards will continue to campaign full force after learning that his wife's cancer has returned. One spin on it was provided by Elizabeth Edwards:"It's not about John Edwards. If it were it would be easy to give it up." But there is another perspective: Why is Edwards going on with the campaign? The answer to that question can be easily reduced -- and, to be clear, we are not reducing it to this -- to personal ambition. Edwards is independently wealthy and has already run for president once. He has previously said that the only thing that could keep him out of the 2008 race was Elizabeth's health. So, now that her health problems have returned, why wouldn't he drop out?

Maybe SHE doesn’t want him too? Maybe he was about to, but as she said, "It's not about John Edwards." SHE is the one sick. SHE Wants him to continue. SHE believes in him.

What happens if Elizabeth's condition worsens. Edwards admitted that the fact Elizabeth's cancer has spread to the bone means that it is no longer curable and compared it to a person who has diabetes. "We are very optimistic about this," he said. Elizabeth noted that she shows no physical signs of the cancer's return. But, what if she becomes more symptomatic over the next weeks or months. Or what if her condition turns far more dire? Have the Edwards privately set a timetable to re-evaluate Elizabeth's condition and see whether the campaign continues?

What if Bill get’s killed in a car accident? WAIT! Never mind. Bad example. What if any other spouse, or even the Candidate themselves end up dying? That ends their campaign. Noone knows what tomorrow brings.

How (if at all) does the announcement affect Edwards' fundraising? Remember that political donors tend to look at their contributions as investments in a candidate. Although Edwards insists the campaign will go on unchanged, it's clear that there is now a much greater likelihood that he might leave the race at some point. Will Edwards still be able to convince wavering donors that he is a good investment?

Very sad, but a very valid point. It could go either way. Yes, big money wants to buy favor with those running for the highest office in the land. But I bet some privet people will increase their donations.

Whatever happened to hearing news like this, and just saying something like, "We are sorry to hear that. Don’t give up. You are in our thoughts and prayers." "We wish you nothing but the best." No folks, we are talking politics, power, and the control. ANYTHING GOES.

To Elizabeth Edwards, I do say to you, I am sorry to hear that. Don’t give up. You are in our thoughts and prayers. To John, I hope you are able to continue. I say do the best you can, I hope the best person wins in the end.
Peter


Sources;
NYT-Blog
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Clinton Vs Obama, Mystery Creator Revealed.

Hey folks,

The lead up to this coming election is the same as all others. Candidates throwing, dishing, accusing, even to calling names. Attacking their rivals, telling you they are the best for the job. Making promises they know they can, nor will never keep. However, this run up, has started a year early. Clinton and Obama both said, "We will run a clean campaign." Folks, they are lying right there. It is NOT in the liberal nature to be honest to begin with. It is in their nature to attack and attempt to destroy anyone the opposes them. They WILL lie, cheat, and steal, or anything else it takes to win.

But you see, the thing is, they do not want you to know that. They want to come across as "nice." they want to appear innocent of any underhanded tactics. So want do they do? They convince, or pay, someone else to do it for them and then deny having taken any part in it.

Get this, the Hillary camp want you to think that there is not that much difference between her and Obama when it comes to the war issue. From the AP last nigh,

During a public forum on Monday night, Mark J. Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenged Obama's antiwar credentials by paraphrasing comments Obama made in 2004 about his uncertainty over the war; former president Bill Clinton reportedly made similar remarks about Obama (D-Ill.) at a fundraiser in Manhattan last week. When asked to support the claims, Clinton officials provided pages of Obama quotations -- some of them abridged -- from 2002 and 2004.

Clinton voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war, while Obama, though he was not yet in the Senate, said at the time that he opposed the war. Obama uses the difference to make the point that he has the judgment to be president, even if he has served only two years in Washington.

His argument cuts to the core of what the Clinton campaign is selling to voters, which is the idea that she is uniquely qualified, by dint of a lifetime in public service, to serve as president. The experience argument, they believe, can ease qualms about Clinton, particularly among left-leaning Democrats {LWL} who might otherwise support her but have deep reservations about her vote for the war.

This is funny folks. Basically, Obama told the truth. He has been talking about her flip flopping all over the place over the war. "I stand by the President." "If I were president, there would be no war." It is the right thing to do." "We have no business being in Iraq." When Saddam was captured? "This is a great day. This is why I voted to give the President permission." "If I become President, I will END THIS WAR!!!" "When I’m President, some of our forces will remain in Iraq." All Hillary, through the last four years. All Obama is doing, is pointing out the truth. Meanwhile, he said that he was not privy to all the information at the time, but based on what hew knows NOW, he probably would not have agreed with the use of force in this situation.
But then again, Obama really doesn’t seem so bight. Maybe inexperienced would be a better word.

On Tuesday, Obama released a video declaring his opposition to the war in no uncertain terms, with snippets from statements he made in 2002 and 2004, including this quote: "I don't oppose war in all circumstances. But what I do oppose is a dumb war." Obama has begun circulating pamphlets at his campaign events with the full text of the speech he gave in 2002 declaring his opposition to the war even at a time when it was relatively popular.

"Dumb war"?
Is that like saying, "I don’t want to play your dumb game, I’m going to take my ball and go home"? Dumb war? That’s an intelligent statement.

Remember the YouTube video attacking Hillary Clinton? It has been a big mystery now for a few days on who created it. The video showed Hillary as "Big Brother" and the video's final image reads "BarackObama.com." Well, according to The Washington Post,

The mystery creator of the Orwellian YouTube ad against Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic operative who worked for a digital consulting firm with ties to rival Sen. Barack Obama.

Philip de Vellis, a strategist with Blue State Digital, acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press that he was the creator of the video, which portrayed Clinton as a Big Brother figure and urged support for Obama's presidential campaign.

He said,

"It's true ... yeah, it's me," de Vellis said Wednesday evening.

He said he produced the ad outside of work and that neither Blue State nor the Obama campaign was aware of his role in the ad.

"But it raises some eyebrows, so I thought it best that I resign and not put them in that position."

Of course not. I’m thinking he will not have problems paying bills.

In the interview, and later in a blog written for the Huffington Post, de Vellis expressed pride in his creation, while acknowledging that his employers are "disappointed and angry at me, and deservedly so."

"It changes the trajectory of my career," he said.

I bet it does. Glad that big mystery has been solved. {Sigh} As time draws nearer, this one, Obama vs Clinton, is starting to prove to be fun to watch. Now if the Republicans can get something going, this will be a very interesting election run up to watch in total.
Peter

Sources,
The Washington Post-Clinton Camp Aims to Minimize Differences With Obama on Iraq
AP- Mystery creator of anti-Clinton ad ID'd

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

I Told You. Bush IS Fighting Back.

Hey folks,

Happy Hump day. Yeah I know I missed yesterday. Sorry about that. But I’m here today. I will be posting another "Behind The Opn Screen" this weekend. Maybe even with a surprise or two. But that’s then. Today, I have two "I told you so’s" {Smile}

First, remember this from Monday?

"It is also the beginning of a new chapter in the continuing saga of the war at home. It seems that Bush has had enough. Also I said, "Finally, President Bush is starting to say enough of this garbage. In essence he is saying "I AM the President and Commander and Chief. You are not. We WILL do things my way."

WELL, look at this headline yesterday in Bloomberg "Bush Administration Fights Back on Prosecutor Firings"

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration sought to quell the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by giving Congress e-mails that show the U.S. attorneys were the target of complaints and had policy disputes with officials in Washington.

Besides all that, they work for the President. He can fire or hire any of them. Even all of them. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Then as a compromise, President Bush has requested that Rove and others talk to Congress. According to Reuters,

The White House offered on Tuesday to make President George W. Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, available to congressional investigators but rejected Democratic demands he testify under oath regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys.

In a letter to relevant members of Congress, White House counsel Fred Fielding made clear he was not offering Rove and other aides to give sworn testimony as had been requested.

"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas," Fielding wrote.

That is to try to make some sort of peace. He is offer them to tell what happened. But there is NO CRIME. No corruption. The Bush Administration has to give Congress permission to talk to the people involved. See folks, there is this annoying little thing call separation of powers. More on that in a second.

If there is ANY doubt that Bush is starting to fight back, this article by the AP basically lays it to rest.

President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to allow top aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

That is because he IS the President. OK, Bush is the President, the Federal Prosecutors are at the discretion of the President. They work for HIM. Congress is trying to change that, with what would be un-Constitutional. Just like the war. He IS the Commander and Chief. There is only one. HIM, not Congress. That is why the are trying to change that. Which would be un-Constitutional.

It’s like you are the boss of Wal-Mart. You chose to, for whatever, fire someone, and Target tells you, you have to explain to THEM why. You get the point. But the President IS getting serious.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said in a statement from the White House. "I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

But they do not care about law. They do not care about those attorneys, the war, the American people, nor this country. All they care about is getting Bush. Why did noone say anything when President Clinton fired all 93? This would include one that was investigating HIM. One investigating an associate of the Clintons, and then hired "White House" friendly people to take their spot? I guess it is only "wrong" if your last name is Bush.

Oh, and a side note. Another I told you so. According to The Washington Post.

House Democratic leaders today locked down two critical Democratic converts -- one liberal, one conservative -- for their massive emergency war spending bill that would set deadlines for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But top Democrats conceded they still have not secured enough votes to pass the measure.

Any questions?
Peter

Sources;
Bloomberg-Bush Administration Fights Back on Prosecutor Firings
AP-Bush warns Democrats to accept his offer
Reuters-Rove offered for unsworn testimony

The WP-House Democrats Still Short Votes to Pass Iraq War Spending Bill

Monday, March 19, 2007

Continuing Saga, Iraq War At Home

"Bush Fights Back"

Hey folks,

Happy Monday morning. It is Monday. It is my least favorite day of the week. It is also the beginning of a new chapter in the continuing saga of the war at home. It seems that Bush has had enough.

He seems to be finally coming out and saying what we all already know. The LWL, {Left Wing Looneys/ Democrat leadership} are trying to micro manage this war. In his radio address to the nation, {Immediately following this uninterrupted} Bush tells it like it is. I love that. But the MMD {Mass Media Drones} seem to have a problem with this. This is just two examples, more to come, I’m sure, in the coming days.

According to the AP by JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 17, 8:31 PM ET

Democrats who are moving ahead with anti-war legislation are using troops as leverage to win domestic political battles, President Bush said Saturday. Democrats pledged to keep pushing until there is a change of course in Iraq.

That’s what I’ve been telling you.

Bush said some lawmakers see a chance "to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror."

In his weekly radio address, the president said, "Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I believe them. Now they have a chance to show that support in deed, as well as in word."

Bush repeated his promise that his spending request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be approved "without strings and without delay" or he will veto it.


Finally, President Bush is starting to say enough of this garbage. In essence he is saying "I AM the President and Commander and Chief. You are not. We WILL do things my way"

Listen to this arrogance.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in her party's weekly radio address, promoted a Democratic plan to narrow the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and begin redeployment of U.S. troops within four months.

"Regrettably, our effort was blocked by Senate Republicans and a president who stubbornly refused to listen," Murray said.

He doesn’t have too. If he wasn’t listening to you when this war first started, went in and did what he should have, this would be long since over and we would have won. But he DID listen to people like you, and we are where we are now.

Then you have this story by JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Sun Mar 18, 7:03 AM ET, talking about vetoes.

The president with the fewest vetoes in more than a century, George W. Bush is poised to make up for lost time as congressional Democrats move legislation the White House says is unacceptable.

One folks,

In July, Bush issued the only veto of his presidency, killing a bill on the use of federal money for stem cell research. The veto stuck when the House failed to get the two-thirds majority needed to override it.

That is the cleanest record since the veto-less presidency of James A. Garfield. He was shot four months after he took office in 1881 and died several months later.

By comparison, Bill Clinton vetoed 37 bills over two terms, George H.W. Bush 44 in his four-year term and Ronald Reagan 78 in his two terms.

George W. Bush's low numbers reflect his cooperative relationship with the Republicans who ran Congress during most of his first six years. Democrats see it somewhat differently.

OK, you want to know why? They were not giving him looney bills. Bills that make no sense. Bills that are NOT what they are. Bills saying one thing with a bunch of provisions which ACTUAL create something completely different and unrelated.

"My view is that the country paid a huge price for a Congress that acted like it was not an equal branch of government," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel ( D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

You, Congress, or anyone else, ARE NOT equal to the President. He is the only one. Sorry to burst your bubble there chairman. Believe it or not, unless you are willing to work together, you can not get anything done. Oh yeah, like you are doing now. Getting nothing done.

Don’t forget, coming right up, the President's Radio address complete and uninterrupted.
Peter

Sources;
AP-White House veto threats proliferate
AP-Bush: Dems trying to micromanage war



THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In times of war, Congress has no greater obligation than funding our war fighters. And next week, the House will begin debate on an emergency war spending bill.

The purpose of this legislation should be to give our troops on the front lines the resources, funds, and equipment they need to fight our enemies. Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this bill as an opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror.

Our troops urgently need Congress to approve emergency war funds. Over the past several weeks, our Nation has begun pursuing a new strategy in Iraq. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus, our troops have launched a difficult and dangerous mission to help Iraqis secure their capital. This plan is still in its early stages, yet we're already seeing signs of progress. Iraqi and American troops have rounded up more than 700 people affiliated with Shia extremists. They've also launched aggressive operations against Sunni extremists. And they've uncovered large caches of weapons that could have been used to kill our troops.

These are hopeful signs. As these operations unfold, they will help the Iraqi government stabilize the country, rebuild the economy, and advance the work of political reconciliation. Yet the bill Congress is considering would undermine General Petraeus and the troops under his command just as these critical security operations are getting under way.

First, the bill would impose arbitrary and restrictive conditions on the use of war funds and require the withdrawal of forces by the end of this year if these conditions are not met. These restrictions would handcuff our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility they need to adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground. And these restrictions would substitute the mandates of Congress for the considered judgment of our military commanders.

Even if every condition required by this bill was met, all American forces -- except for very limited purposes -- would still be required to withdraw next year, regardless of the situation in Iraq. The consequences of imposing such an artificial timetable would be disastrous.

Here is what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently told Congress: Setting a fixed date to withdraw would "essentially tell [the enemy] how long they would have to wait until we're gone." If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, the scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify. A contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country, and in time, this violence would engulf the region. The enemy would emerge from the chaos emboldened with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. Such an outcome would be a nightmare for our country.

Second, the bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet rigid conditions set by Congress. This makes no sense. Members of Congress have often said that the Iraqis must step forward and take more responsibility for their own security -- and I agree. Yet Members of Congress can't have it both ways: They can't say that the Iraqis must do more and then take away the funds that will help them do so. Iraqis a young democracy that is fighting for its survival in a region that is vital to American security. To cut off support for their security forces at this critical moment would put our own security at risk.

Third, the bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the House bill would provide $74 million for peanut storage, $48 million for the Farm Service Agency, and $35 million for NASA. These programs do not belong in an emergency war spending bill. Congress must not allow debate on domestic spending to delay funds for our troops on the front lines. And Members should not use funding our troops as leverage to pass special interest spending for their districts.

We are a Nation at war, and the heaviest responsibilities fall to our troops in the field. Yet we in Washington have responsibilities, as well. General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote in opposition, and he and his troops need these resources to succeed in their mission. Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I believe them. Now they have a chance to show that support in deed, as well as in word. Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings and without delay. If they send me a bill that does otherwise, I will veto it.

Thank you for listening.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

IWA for Sunday, March 18, 2007

Hey folks,

It’ Sunday, time for the IWA. I have a question. Do not miss understand me. This is ALWAYS wrong. I’m glad she got what she did. My problem is why her? Why not all? Well, you probably, like I, already know the answer. She is not pretty enough.

This could also fall into the "here we go again" files.

A sixth-grade science teacher who was accused of having sex with a 13-year-old student has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Rachel L. Holt, 35, had pleaded guilty to second-degree rape. She sobbed in court Friday as Superior Court Judge Calvin L. Scott gave her the mandatory minimum sentence.

Prosecutors had wanted Scott to sentence Holt to the maximum of 25 years.
Holt was initially charged with 28 counts of first-degree rape.

Police accused her of having sex with the boy that many times during an intense weeklong affair. She was also accused of plying the boy with alcohol and allowing him to drive her car.


28 times in a week? That had to be a young,, never mind. Like I said she deserves the sentence. ANY teachers taking advantage of their students deserve a mandatory sentence. ALL of them do. Her attorney even questioned the vast difference between the sentencing in this growing trend.

Holt's attorney, John S. Malik, said the sentence was much longer than what teachers convicted in similar cases got. He reviewed 40 such cases and found the average was 18 months to two years.

That’s because she does not look like this.

In my opinion, and you know I’m not afraid to make it known, there should be a minimum sentence to any teacher that gets caught, and is proven guilty of having sex with their students. Ten years sounds about right.

Congratulations Rachel, for adding sex to the curriculum, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. Now you have ten years to think about it. Hey, maybe you can get a job as a teacher in prison. I bet your students there will be more than happy to "study" sex with you.
Peter

Source
AP-Teacher gets 10 years for sex with pupil