http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/D8N5MJO00.html
Nancy Pelosi is frankly, a big baby.
After being denied her request for a C-32, which is the Military equivalent of the Boeing 757-200. She stated that she preferred to fly commercial if that's what it would take.
She claims this is the only plane that can satisify her security needs, due to the fact that it can fly coast to coast without having to refuel.
Tell me, what have you done that would require you eliminate any fueling stops throughout the US?
It was deemed an extravagance that the taxpayers would find hard to swallow.
You bet they would. Why would I want to pay for her to fly across the country in a jet she doesn't even need, when a smaller plane would work just as well?
Former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert flew on an Air Force commuter-size plane and had no problems at all. Wonder what the difference is? Did I mention he's a Republican?
In an interview with Fox, she claimed the denial was due to her criticism of the war and of Donald Rumsfield. She said, quote, "There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard."
Give me a break and act your age, for pity's sake.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Security Crackdown in Baghdad.
What has long been needed hopefully is beginning.
Within the last 5 hours, US, Iraqi and Coalition forces have begun a crackdown that will hopefully pave the way for even greater assertion of power.
It's been too long since we've given the insurgents any retribution of substance.
It's been too long since we've given any indication of having any sort of backbone.
We are the most powerful nation on the planet, why have we been made impotent by politicians? Why do people such as Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Hilary Clinton feel they have to make our country weak?
We are NOT a weak country, we've have survived since 1620 when the first Englishman stepped off the Mayflower.
We never gave up, even through Valley Forge where George Washington never gave up faith and courage.
In 1776, 56 men put their lives, their comforts, and their fortunes on the line. They signed a document known as the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
Words that changed the face of the world, and brought forth the greatest nation on earth.
We survived the slaughter of 500,000 American men for the sake of unity in the civil war.
We lost nearly5 million men in the wars this country has fought.
They were not fighting simply to win honor or glory. They were not fighting be recognized as one of the greatest fighting machines on earth.
They fought for one purpose; to defend their country, their freedoms, and their families.
They fought to protect what is right, the rights to live freely, to speak freely.
They fought so that you can burn a flag. So that you can ridicule them, call them names, spit on them. So that you can throw your freedom in their faces.
Do not give into the Liberal way of thinking.
This country was birthed through war and opposition. Did we turn tail and run?
If everytime something came against us that we didn't like, we would not even exist as a country.
Within the last 5 hours, US, Iraqi and Coalition forces have begun a crackdown that will hopefully pave the way for even greater assertion of power.
It's been too long since we've given the insurgents any retribution of substance.
It's been too long since we've given any indication of having any sort of backbone.
We are the most powerful nation on the planet, why have we been made impotent by politicians? Why do people such as Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Hilary Clinton feel they have to make our country weak?
We are NOT a weak country, we've have survived since 1620 when the first Englishman stepped off the Mayflower.
We never gave up, even through Valley Forge where George Washington never gave up faith and courage.
In 1776, 56 men put their lives, their comforts, and their fortunes on the line. They signed a document known as the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
Words that changed the face of the world, and brought forth the greatest nation on earth.
We survived the slaughter of 500,000 American men for the sake of unity in the civil war.
We lost nearly5 million men in the wars this country has fought.
They were not fighting simply to win honor or glory. They were not fighting be recognized as one of the greatest fighting machines on earth.
They fought for one purpose; to defend their country, their freedoms, and their families.
They fought to protect what is right, the rights to live freely, to speak freely.
They fought so that you can burn a flag. So that you can ridicule them, call them names, spit on them. So that you can throw your freedom in their faces.
Do not give into the Liberal way of thinking.
This country was birthed through war and opposition. Did we turn tail and run?
If everytime something came against us that we didn't like, we would not even exist as a country.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Homosexual's turning the way of the Communist?
http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html
A petition calling for heterosexual couples to prove they can concieve and bear children in order to receive their marriage licsence is being pushing in Olympia, WA.
It calls for couples who do not have children within three years of marriage to have the union annulled and all benefits erased.
Their reasoning? They say that anti-gay activist reasoning for banning gay marriage is linked to the point that homosexual couples cannot have children.
So, they say if we're going to say that they aren't a 'real' marriage because of the lack of procreation, then all other marriages that do not produce children should be null and void as well.
It has nothing to do with whether they can have children or not, it comes down to a point of freedom. Who are they to come into our lives and tell us that we are wrong and that we have to accept them?
Our lives are not to scorn or spite them, our lives are the norm. Don't attack us for being something you cannot be. We excercise our 1st Ammendment right just like you.
Just because you feel like you're a victim doesn't mean you are one.
A petition calling for heterosexual couples to prove they can concieve and bear children in order to receive their marriage licsence is being pushing in Olympia, WA.
It calls for couples who do not have children within three years of marriage to have the union annulled and all benefits erased.
Their reasoning? They say that anti-gay activist reasoning for banning gay marriage is linked to the point that homosexual couples cannot have children.
So, they say if we're going to say that they aren't a 'real' marriage because of the lack of procreation, then all other marriages that do not produce children should be null and void as well.
It has nothing to do with whether they can have children or not, it comes down to a point of freedom. Who are they to come into our lives and tell us that we are wrong and that we have to accept them?
Our lives are not to scorn or spite them, our lives are the norm. Don't attack us for being something you cannot be. We excercise our 1st Ammendment right just like you.
Just because you feel like you're a victim doesn't mean you are one.
Is the world full of (oxy)morons?
A simple definition of oxymoron is two words forming a compound word that have completely opposite meanings. i.e. Civil War, smart blonde, and etc.
It seems to me that perhaps the biggest oxymoron of all is "bipartisan media".
The names I. Lewis Libby, Judith Miller, Valerie Plame and Dick Cheney have saturated the media over the course of the last few months.
People are finding it hard to believe that a White House aide would know the name of a CIA officer. Why do we not find it hard to believe that a New York Times reporter knows the name of a CIA officer? Would one not think that perhaps something is wrong?
How does a woman with no security clearance, no working connection with the State Dept learn the name of a top secret organization's employee?
Yet, a man who has worked in the White House and is an aide to President Bush is being ostracized and put on trial.
Judith Miller refused to give the name of her source, despite Grand Juries and subpoenas, why is she not on trial for obstruction of justice and perjury?
How does a man like Tim Russert get away with asking Libby about Plame on national television? Shouldn't that raise a red flag? Sure, Libby may not have the clearance needed to know Plame's name, but Judith Miller and Tim Russert certainly do not.
Wait, did I mention that Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson is an open critic of the Bush administration? Ah, now we get to the heart of things. Of course it's a cover-up, you know what the liberals are thinking.
They (the White House) has a vendetta against all who disagree with them. Let's turn the tables on them, let's get even with them for being upset about our Op/Ed letters and articles.
Why don't we leak classified information to a reporter, ensure that she does not have to reveal her source, and make Dick Cheney look like a traitor. Oh, and while we're at it, let's take down I. Lewis Libby.
In other news, a former Border Patrol Agent was beaten in prison, according to family and a congress man. Ignacio Ramos was sentenced to prison for shooting an Illegal immigrant and known drug runner while he fled back across the border into Mexico, and then lying about it.
What a world, eh folks?
It seems to me that perhaps the biggest oxymoron of all is "bipartisan media".
The names I. Lewis Libby, Judith Miller, Valerie Plame and Dick Cheney have saturated the media over the course of the last few months.
People are finding it hard to believe that a White House aide would know the name of a CIA officer. Why do we not find it hard to believe that a New York Times reporter knows the name of a CIA officer? Would one not think that perhaps something is wrong?
How does a woman with no security clearance, no working connection with the State Dept learn the name of a top secret organization's employee?
Yet, a man who has worked in the White House and is an aide to President Bush is being ostracized and put on trial.
Judith Miller refused to give the name of her source, despite Grand Juries and subpoenas, why is she not on trial for obstruction of justice and perjury?
How does a man like Tim Russert get away with asking Libby about Plame on national television? Shouldn't that raise a red flag? Sure, Libby may not have the clearance needed to know Plame's name, but Judith Miller and Tim Russert certainly do not.
Wait, did I mention that Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson is an open critic of the Bush administration? Ah, now we get to the heart of things. Of course it's a cover-up, you know what the liberals are thinking.
They (the White House) has a vendetta against all who disagree with them. Let's turn the tables on them, let's get even with them for being upset about our Op/Ed letters and articles.
Why don't we leak classified information to a reporter, ensure that she does not have to reveal her source, and make Dick Cheney look like a traitor. Oh, and while we're at it, let's take down I. Lewis Libby.
In other news, a former Border Patrol Agent was beaten in prison, according to family and a congress man. Ignacio Ramos was sentenced to prison for shooting an Illegal immigrant and known drug runner while he fled back across the border into Mexico, and then lying about it.
What a world, eh folks?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Ahmadinejad and Liz Cheney speak out.
Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives
Yaakov Lappin
Published:
01.23.07, 22:24
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."
Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."
Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
Ah, he's at it again. The esteemed President of Iran is fortelling the destruction of America and Israel- still.
Has he qualified for Mullah status yet?
In other news, sweeps in LA netted over 750 illegal aliens. Of the 761, over 400 have already been deported. Can you say progress?
Liz Cheney is speaking out about Hilary Clinton and the war in general. Let me tell you, my jaw dropped when I read this.
Retreat Isn't an Option
By Liz CheneyTuesday, January 23, 2007; A17
Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.
In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.
I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:
· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.
· Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away.
What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community and halt his nuclear weapons program.
A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and Syria, he said, "Because they know Iran and Syria aren't going anyplace. We're not so sure about America."
· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.
I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much.
America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory.
We must be in it to win.
Hear, hear, Ms. Cheney, I don't think I could have said it better myself!
Yaakov Lappin
Published:
01.23.07, 22:24
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."
Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."
Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
Ah, he's at it again. The esteemed President of Iran is fortelling the destruction of America and Israel- still.
Has he qualified for Mullah status yet?
In other news, sweeps in LA netted over 750 illegal aliens. Of the 761, over 400 have already been deported. Can you say progress?
Liz Cheney is speaking out about Hilary Clinton and the war in general. Let me tell you, my jaw dropped when I read this.
Retreat Isn't an Option
By Liz CheneyTuesday, January 23, 2007; A17
Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.
In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.
I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:
· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.
· Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away.
What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community and halt his nuclear weapons program.
A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and Syria, he said, "Because they know Iran and Syria aren't going anyplace. We're not so sure about America."
· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.
I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much.
America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory.
We must be in it to win.
Hear, hear, Ms. Cheney, I don't think I could have said it better myself!
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The ACLU's Plan to save the guilty.
With the announcement for plans to collect the DNA of illegal aliens, terrorism detainees and those charged but not convicted of federal crimes, the ACLU and EPIC moves to action.
Their cause? Defend the guilty from being databased. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sen. Jon Kyl are the major proponents of the bill.
Currently, the FBI's CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System) is the only DNA database available. The ACLU has jumped on the bill, which is still in it's rough stage, decrying it as invasive. Their main objection? If you happen to be singled out for an airport inspection, you might be added to the database. If you're chosen at a border checkpoint, you might be added to the database. This is too much of a risk to take. We can't take massive steps to protect our borders without possibly stepping on the toes of our spoiled and guilty minded public.
Out of 100 illegal aliens arrested, 70% will be rearrested. The rise of diseases such as leprosey, smallpox, scarlet fever and malaria are on the rise. We're being bled dry by the illegals that come to America and have their babies. Babies which become citizens, thus entitled to the benefits of welfare and tax payer support.
Terrorism has proven over and over that it has no other agenda but to destroy America.
Why on earth would a group called the American Civil Liberties Union want to defend the 'rights' of people that are on the verge of killing everything we stand for and love?
Why not just elimiate AFIS and NCIC as well? Are we wrong to take steps to label criminals and terrorists?
Their cause? Defend the guilty from being databased. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sen. Jon Kyl are the major proponents of the bill.
Currently, the FBI's CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System) is the only DNA database available. The ACLU has jumped on the bill, which is still in it's rough stage, decrying it as invasive. Their main objection? If you happen to be singled out for an airport inspection, you might be added to the database. If you're chosen at a border checkpoint, you might be added to the database. This is too much of a risk to take. We can't take massive steps to protect our borders without possibly stepping on the toes of our spoiled and guilty minded public.
Out of 100 illegal aliens arrested, 70% will be rearrested. The rise of diseases such as leprosey, smallpox, scarlet fever and malaria are on the rise. We're being bled dry by the illegals that come to America and have their babies. Babies which become citizens, thus entitled to the benefits of welfare and tax payer support.
Terrorism has proven over and over that it has no other agenda but to destroy America.
Why on earth would a group called the American Civil Liberties Union want to defend the 'rights' of people that are on the verge of killing everything we stand for and love?
Why not just elimiate AFIS and NCIC as well? Are we wrong to take steps to label criminals and terrorists?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Eh, missing me yet? I realized yesterday that I haven't addressed the new Iraq strategy that President Bush outlined last week.. perhaps it was two weeks ago, the days tend to run together.
He's sending 20, 000 more troops over there. I do agree with this plan, my only qualm is that there is no increase in the bombing raids. This is due to, of course, the large presence of American and Coalition forces in country.
I believe that was one of our large errors in the onset of the war. During the first Gulf War, bombing runs were conducted around the clock. Giving the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army little chance to regroup.
This time around, there wasn't (in my opinion) nearly enough strafing runs to break up the pockets of resistance. Fallujah, Tikrit, Baghdad, Mosul, all of these towns should have been bombed regularly for a week.
Drive the resistance underground, or better yet, destroy it and you have less opposition when the ground troops go in.
Yes, I know about collateral damage, I know that innocents die, and frankly, I wish it would never happen.
But unfortunately, it does. People do die. It happens to be a fact of life, you live, then you die.
Anyway, back to my original topic. 20,000 more troops, Good. More funding, very good.
His only opposition there is going to be his Congress and House. Good luck with Pelosi, Mr President.
What I found ironic is while he took the blame for all of the mistakes that happened. He didn't take the credit for all the good things that have happened.
Let's see, the Iraqi's are no longer oppressed by a dictator, have held democratic elections, have a President, a Constitution, and a myriad of other things.
Wonder who is responsible for all of that?
One person made the decision for that to become possible.
This man has been ridiculed, reviled, insulted, mocked, called names, been "disapproved of" and disrespected by millions. Yet, he is a hero in this day and age.
George W. Bush.
He's sending 20, 000 more troops over there. I do agree with this plan, my only qualm is that there is no increase in the bombing raids. This is due to, of course, the large presence of American and Coalition forces in country.
I believe that was one of our large errors in the onset of the war. During the first Gulf War, bombing runs were conducted around the clock. Giving the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army little chance to regroup.
This time around, there wasn't (in my opinion) nearly enough strafing runs to break up the pockets of resistance. Fallujah, Tikrit, Baghdad, Mosul, all of these towns should have been bombed regularly for a week.
Drive the resistance underground, or better yet, destroy it and you have less opposition when the ground troops go in.
Yes, I know about collateral damage, I know that innocents die, and frankly, I wish it would never happen.
But unfortunately, it does. People do die. It happens to be a fact of life, you live, then you die.
Anyway, back to my original topic. 20,000 more troops, Good. More funding, very good.
His only opposition there is going to be his Congress and House. Good luck with Pelosi, Mr President.
What I found ironic is while he took the blame for all of the mistakes that happened. He didn't take the credit for all the good things that have happened.
Let's see, the Iraqi's are no longer oppressed by a dictator, have held democratic elections, have a President, a Constitution, and a myriad of other things.
Wonder who is responsible for all of that?
One person made the decision for that to become possible.
This man has been ridiculed, reviled, insulted, mocked, called names, been "disapproved of" and disrespected by millions. Yet, he is a hero in this day and age.
George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
