On slow news days YouTube seems to make its way onto my screen. I got a lot of responses to my last video of a President Bush impersonator, here is another one. He doesn't look like Bush until he starts speaking like him, it is hilarious.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
How to End the War
An editorial in today's New York Times discusses the fact that al Qaeda is rebuilding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is now gaining strength. This is unacceptable.
Looking past the NYT's typical left leaning, and (rightfully) criticizing of President Bush's tactics on Iraq, their recommendations are almost good, just not forceful enough. The terrorists camps which were destroyed in 2001 are now rebuilt because of the lack of American forces in Afghanistan. It doesn't matter which party you are a part of, its a fact.
Look, when we first went to Afghanistan in 2001 how long did it take to defeat the Taliban and destroy all the terrorist training camps? Not very long. These terrorists are obviously weak, and the fact that they are given the room to rebuilt shines light on the fact that our number of troops in Afghanistan is too low.
These terrorists are now going to Iraq, planting IEDs, and strapping on suicide vests. It is time to go on offense in these wars. I am sick and tired of hearing about death tolls, house resolutions, and calls for retreat. In Iraq we were on offense for a few months, and we did well. Now we are on defense, just hoping our soldiers don't get killed instead of attacking the cowardly "insurgents." The president's plan is good but it is weak. The only winning way out of Iraq is to take out all of the insurgents. Weak Iraqi soldiers (see my previous post on this topic) backed up by additional 21,000 troops is not good enough. It is an excuse, a scapegoat plan.
If we want to win in Iraq we need to deploy an additional 50,000-100,000 troops to Iraq, this number of soldiers would absolutely overwhelm the weak insurgents. After most of the insurgents are killed, the rest of them can go hide in spider holes like the courageous Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. With this much firepower, it would take a month to defeat the insurgents.
The same needs to happen in Afghanistan, we need an overwhelming number of troops to finish off the cowards. Where are we going to get these troops? If Americans could be convinced that we could end these wars once and for all, many would sign up willingly (I would). If that doesn't work, we need to use the draft.
Looking past the NYT's typical left leaning, and (rightfully) criticizing of President Bush's tactics on Iraq, their recommendations are almost good, just not forceful enough. The terrorists camps which were destroyed in 2001 are now rebuilt because of the lack of American forces in Afghanistan. It doesn't matter which party you are a part of, its a fact.
Look, when we first went to Afghanistan in 2001 how long did it take to defeat the Taliban and destroy all the terrorist training camps? Not very long. These terrorists are obviously weak, and the fact that they are given the room to rebuilt shines light on the fact that our number of troops in Afghanistan is too low.
These terrorists are now going to Iraq, planting IEDs, and strapping on suicide vests. It is time to go on offense in these wars. I am sick and tired of hearing about death tolls, house resolutions, and calls for retreat. In Iraq we were on offense for a few months, and we did well. Now we are on defense, just hoping our soldiers don't get killed instead of attacking the cowardly "insurgents." The president's plan is good but it is weak. The only winning way out of Iraq is to take out all of the insurgents. Weak Iraqi soldiers (see my previous post on this topic) backed up by additional 21,000 troops is not good enough. It is an excuse, a scapegoat plan.
If we want to win in Iraq we need to deploy an additional 50,000-100,000 troops to Iraq, this number of soldiers would absolutely overwhelm the weak insurgents. After most of the insurgents are killed, the rest of them can go hide in spider holes like the courageous Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. With this much firepower, it would take a month to defeat the insurgents.
The same needs to happen in Afghanistan, we need an overwhelming number of troops to finish off the cowards. Where are we going to get these troops? If Americans could be convinced that we could end these wars once and for all, many would sign up willingly (I would). If that doesn't work, we need to use the draft.
(Another option that would work would be TALKS, imagine that. Everyone is fighting for something, we need to actually negotiate.) Politicians would have to come together for this one to happen...
If we just leave Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be attacks on American soil, because they will have the resources. We need to finish these wars on their turf once and for all. We need to stop playing defense, it does not win wars.
If we just leave Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be attacks on American soil, because they will have the resources. We need to finish these wars on their turf once and for all. We need to stop playing defense, it does not win wars.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Politicians spending campaign contributions years after retirement
In tomorrow's New York Times there will be a story about how retired politicians are spending their unused campaign funds, on expensive dinners and gifts.
This is the kind of stuff Americans are sick of hearing about, but we can do nothing to change it. Politicians have become professionals are finding loophole after loophole, though loopholes. I understand that only a very small number of politicians do this sort of thing, but it only takes one story about it to make Americans think that they all do it.
In New York the law states the unused funds may not be used for activities “unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position.” Does that law sound clear? No, politicians wrote it. They get around it by saying they might run again someday, and they have to stay in touch with the people.
If politicians want the trust they need, they must make a law that says "unused campaign funds must be donated to families of 9/11 victims." End of discussion.
People do not contribute to a campaign so the politician can buy a $2,000 dinner years after the campaign is over. They contribute to get the candidate into office. Once the candidate is in office, or doesn't win office the money needs to be donated to charity.
McCain/Obama 2008?
It turns out that people other than me and my readers have a dream of a bipartisan presidential ticket. Unity08.com is a new group started by former presidential advisors. Their goal is not to start a third party, but to put together a bipartisan ticket for the 2008 Presidential Election. This is an awesome idea, I recommend that you check out the website, and read other news stories about Unity08. More to follow....
Links:
CBSNews.com storyEnd of War in Iraq?
A story in the Washington Post today describes how Democrats are trying to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden said, "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."
While this does seem true, Congress will not end the Iraq war. They will pass nonbinding resolutions and try to repeal passed resolutions until their faces turn blue, but at the end of the day they will not end the war.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden said, "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."
While this does seem true, Congress will not end the Iraq war. They will pass nonbinding resolutions and try to repeal passed resolutions until their faces turn blue, but at the end of the day they will not end the war.
This is all about elections. It is obvious that the Iraq war is very unpopular among American voters, if presidential candidates don't seem as if they are doing everything they can to end the war right now they will not get elected, its that simple.
If Congress wanted to end the war they could, they control the funding. All they have to do is cut off the funding, however this would be a terrible thing to do.
Over the next year we will be frequently hearing about resolutions and other measures that will continue to create the illusion that the Democrats will try to end the war on their terms, but its just politics. Nothing will change until someone stands up.
If Congress wanted to end the war they could, they control the funding. All they have to do is cut off the funding, however this would be a terrible thing to do.
Over the next year we will be frequently hearing about resolutions and other measures that will continue to create the illusion that the Democrats will try to end the war on their terms, but its just politics. Nothing will change until someone stands up.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Iran: Spineless Leadership Wants War
What is wrong with this guy? A Washington Post story today reported that the deadline set by the UN Security Council for Iran to "suspend its enrichment-related activities" has come and past.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (seen in this picture during his hostage taking days) "vowed again today that Iran would not give up its nuclear activities." Iran claims that they are developing peaceful nuclear energy.
If that's the case then why won't they accept free aide from other countries including materials that would speed their pursuit for "peaceful nuclear energy."
There is no logical reason to refuse such offers, but Iran has. Why? Because they are trying to make a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel. "President" Ahmadinejad is notorious for frequently calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
During the (odd) war last summer ID carrying Iranian agents were captured among the Hezbollah fighters. And now the Iranians are supplying Iraqi insurgents with IED devices to attack US troops.
The leadership in Iran is spineless. If they want to fight another country, fight them. Don't send in covert agents and try and hide yourself. That is the way of terrorists, the most spineless people on the face of the earth.
In the Post's story the great Ahmadinejad also sent a message to global powers, "If you return to the path of righteousness, you will have the friendship of our nation, and if you insist on your wrongdoing you will experience humiliation, misery and shame."
Oh, what is the path of righteousness Mr. A.? Sending in covert fighters to fight Israel, making bombs for Iraqi insurgents, or how about saying that the Holocaust never happened?
It seemed that a week or so ago Iran seemed to be up for negotiations. At least that is what everyone in Iran wants, except Mr. A. It worked for North Korea, lets just hope that Condi Rice can work some magic with Iran, or that Mr. A is overthrown by his citizens. I'd prefer to see that latter. The Iranian people are much smarter than he is.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Clinton v. Obama...Words Edition
YES! It is finally getting started, something we all saw coming. Clinton v. Obama...words edition. Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times today has Sen. Clinton meaner than a dog crappin tacks.
In the column Dowd interviewed billionaire Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a one time major supporter of Bill Clinton. Geffen, who hosted a fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama last night, made some stabbing remarks about the Clintons. "I think that they believe she's the easiest to defeat, Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family."
I have to agree with both of these comments by Mr. Geffen. Most people are plain tired of having regimes here in America. Two families occupying the white house for 20 years already, possibly 8 more....man it give me a headache just thinking about it!
Today Sen. Clinton said "I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don't want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction." Give me a break, that's like bin Laden saying "bombs are bad, I would never condone the use of them."
The Clintons are notorious for waging the nastiest, most secretive, hurtful campaigns of our time. They have already gotten started; do you remember the lie that Obama was schooled at an extremist school overseas. It made headlines for about a day. Most people knew it was a lie, but it got people talking. Where do you think that little white lie came from? On voting day, little things like that can change a voter's mind, and the Clintons know that better than you or me.
Today the Clinton camp called for Sen. Obama to denounce the comments by Mr. Geffen. This makes no logical sense. A supporter of his said the comments, Sen. Obama didn't. I support about 6 candidates right now(from both parties), one of them is Sen. Obama. Therefore I am to Obama's campaign nothing less than what Mr. Geffen is to Obama's campaign, a supporter. Going by Clinton's logic Obama should have to denounce my words when I say, "Hillary Clinton would make a terrible president."
As Mr. Geffen put it, "I don't think another incredibly polarizing figure...can bring the country together."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
