About Me

Name: Gary Gross
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Webb v. Allen

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, September 18, 2006 9:36:42 AM
After reading Dean Barnett's posts on the Allen v. Webb debate, I read the transcript of the Webb-Allen debate. Far from agreeing with him that "If it was a prize fight, it would have been stopped at the first commercial break", what I read is that Webb made a number of reckless and indefensible statements. Here's the list I came up with:

We didn’t go into Iraq because of terrorism, we have terrorists in Iraq because we went in there.

Does Mr. Webb intend on defending that stupid of a comment? Does he think that Ansar al-Islam was a civic group? Does he think that Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were just misunderstood souls? Does Mr. Webb think that Salman Pak was a training school for flight attendants? Ansar al-Islam was in northern Iraq during the Clinton Administration. Salman Pak was a training sight for hijackers, bombmakers and suicide attacks.

Now, that’s where this administration seems to have blinders. They’re not talking to Syria, they’re not talking to Iran.

Imagine that!!! President Bush isn't looking to the Syrians and Iranians to be part of the solution to the Middle East. This statement comes straight from the Democrat playbook that stems from the belief that things would be better if we just talked with our enemies. Then they'd understand us and agree with us. That's what Jimmy Carter did in 1979. All that did was start the state-sponsored global terrorism movement.

MR. RUSSERT: My question is $300 billion in Iraq. Could it have been better spent?
MR. WEBB: Yes. We could have, we could have contained Iraq. If you want to take out Saddam Hussein, there are ways to take out Saddam Hussein. We did not need to go into a country, decapitate the government and inherit the, the responsibility of rebuilding it. And eventually that is going to fall to the other countries in the region. It’s just going to.

That opinion is so stupid it hurts just reading it. Considering the fact that Saddam wasn't contained because of all the bribes he made in the Oil-For-Food scandal, the thought that he was contained was an illusion created so that politicians could avoid dealing with reality.

As for Webb's statement that "there are ways to take out Saddam Hussein. We did not need to go into a country, decapitate the government and inherit the, the responsibility of rebuilding it", just how would we have "taken Saddam Hussein out" without Iraq being taken over by one of his Baathist loyalists? Does Mr. Webb think that Saddam's loyalists wouldn't have objected to the installation of a government that would've taken away their positions of power? Or does Mr. Webb think that these Baathists would've been more gentle on Iraqis than Saddam?

MR. RUSSERT: Where do you come down on this? Are you with the Sen. Warner-McCain version, or President Bush’s version of dealing with interrogating and prosecuting enemy combatants?
MR. WEBB: I’m with Sen. Warner on this, and I think in terms of what Colin Powell is saying, that’s a very important piece of how we view, how we deal long-term with the Islamic world particularly, that we have to stay on the moral high ground. And what you’re seeing here is a split between the theorists, who have controlled so much of the policy in this administration, theorists who have never been on a battlefield, who have never put a uniform on, and who are looking at this thing in a totally different way from people who have had to worry about their troops and themselves possibly coming under enemy hands. This is a very easy issue for me to decide on.

Thank you, Mr. Webb, for clarifying the fact that you'd hamstring the interrogators who've used aggressive interrogation techniques to capture KSM and to prevent no less than 8 attacks against U.S. interests at home and in theater. As I've said here, Democrats seem more worried about "about the ‘World Community’s’ opinion" than they are about "getting every bit of information from the terrorists." If Mr. Webb wants to stand his ground on that, that's his option. He just shouldn't be surprised when he gets run over by Virginia voters this November.

MR. WEBB: But you have to worry about one thing also here, that tainted evidence often comes from torture, and I think John McCain has made that point very well. If we’re coercing...information, not all, you don’t always have the right information. That’s how we ended up in Iraq.

That isn't what I heard when Bill O'Reilly talked to the interrogators stationed at Gitmo. They said that the information they get is very reliable. Does Mr. Webb want to defend his position that this information isn't accurate in light of the president saying that the methods currently being used have led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and the prevention of 8 terrorist attacks against American interests, both here in America and also in Iraq?

It's also a sign that he's reciting Democratic talking points by trying to bring up Iraq whenever possible. Why else would he say that relying on coerced interrogation is what got us into Iraq? No serious person believes that. Only moonbat Democrats buy into that nonsense.

When the summary is written on the Allen-Webb debate, it'll show that Webb made one misstatement after another and that Webb sounded good making a slew of foolish statements. If that's all it takes to win by TKO, then Republicans don't stand a chance because every Democrat can make foolish statements.

I'd hope that Mr. Barnett would base his future opinions more on substance than on style.

Technorati: Election 2006, George Allen, James Webb, CIA
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain: About to Get Rolled?

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, September 18, 2006 8:33:00 AM
That's the question that I have regarding the CIA interrogation flap that's developing in Washington. My hunch is that that's exactly what's going to happen. One of the reasons I say this is this Bill Kristol opinion from yesterday's FNS roundtable:

Incidentally, I'm very concerned about U.S. soldiers in the field. I was with the parents of a young man serving in Iraq last night. They're for Bush, not for McCain. Do we think if we polled the soldiers in Iraq, they would be with McCain on this, not with Bush? I rather doubt it. This is an issue of how tough we can be on the very few high-value terrorists whom we choose to have the CIA interrogate. It has nothing to do with the military treatment of other military prisoners. And on this issue, I think the country is with Bush. I think the enlisted men in the military are with Bush. And Bush is going to win.

I haven't seen any polling on this but I'd have to bet that America is split 75-25 on using aggressive measures in breaking the KSM's & Abu Zubaydahs, with McCain's being the indefensible position in this fight. I don't know why McCain's chosen this position because I don't see the merit of his position. Frankly, I only see McCain's position as one of a stubborn, wrong-headed man.

Why anyone would care about anything other than getting the information out a terrorist's head, regardless of what the 'World Community' thinks? The 'World Community' has the luxury of pontificating on this issue because they aren't AQ's primary targets. President Bush doesn't have the luxury of living in this hypothetical world. His mission is simple: prevent terrorists from executing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He's had a perfect record on the issue since the world changed on 9/11. In fact, the interrogators' use of aggressive, though not abusive, methods have led to Abu Zubaydah giving up 9/11 mastermind KSM, as well as several other HVT's.

Let's look at another Kristol clear comment:

It's a tough vote for Democrats. The Democrats are living in a world where they think having John McCain on their side gives them a huge amount of political cover. I don't buy it. If you're in a real competitive Senate race and a Republican says, "I'm with Bush, and I'm with the CIA director, and I'm with the intelligence officers in the field who have to buy litigation insurance now because of the illegal uncertainty, and I think we need to be tough on people like Abu Zubaydah," what's the Democratic Party going to say? "Well, gee, I'm with Senator McCain." Well, fine, but what's your substantive position? If your substantive position is you can't be tough with the Al Qaida terrorists, that is a winning fight for Bush, and McCain being on the opposite side of it is hurting him badly.

I totally agree with Mr. Kristol's assessment that Democrats can't hide behind McCain. McCain's is an idefensible position, which makes his staking out this position all the more puzzling. That Democrats would oppose this isn't surprising. Nothing in their public statements say that they're more worried about getting every bit of information from the terrorists than they are about the 'World Community's' opinion. We shouldn't seek out opportunities to anger the 'World Community' but we shouldn't cave to their opinions when it's a life-and-death situation, either. And this is a life-and-death situation.

WALLACE: So you're saying that even if they're fighting amongst themselves, the Republicans, the very fact that they're talking about the war on terror and not the war in Iraq and not other issues is good for Republicans?
KRISTOL: Yes, because the actual Republican candidates in the 50 congressional districts and 10 Senate states that are really at risk, or in play, are not going to be fighting among themselves. They're going to be with Bush. And the Democrats are against Bush. Now, it makes them feel better here in the Capitol to have McCain and Lindsey Graham with them. But in the real races in Missouri and in Minnesota and in Washington state, where there are real races going on, I think it's a winning fight for the Republicans.
HUME: And not only that, Chris. That's not the only fight that's going on, the one over detainee treatment and trial. There's also a battle going on over whether the president should have the legal authority granted him specifically by Congress to conduct this electronic eavesdropping on telephone calls from suspected Al Qaida people into and out of the United States without a warrant. The public, I think, widely supports that program. The Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, for example, made a tremendous stink in opposition to it, accused the president of all kinds of things. You've got Leahy and Senator Feingold and those people out arguing against the president on this. And that goes into the memory banks, as well, I think. And so, it's not just this one fight. Democrats are against the president on a number of issues here.

Bill and Brit have nailed the essence of this issue. They've shown the folly of the Democrats' position on the Patriot Act, the NSA intercept program and the Democrats' belligerance on last week's Senate Judiciary vote passing the NSA intercept legislation. Here's the Washington Post's account of the NSA intercept legislation:

With prodding from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 along party lines to approve a bill negotiated with the White House to allow, but not require, Bush to submit the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program to a secret court for constitutional review.
That bill, which could come before the Senate next week, is considered by many to be a ratification of the administration's current surveillance program, which monitors the overseas phone calls and e-mails of some Americans when one party is suspected of links to terrorism. The program has been attacked by Democrats and civil liberties advocates as an excessive encroachment on Americans' privacy.

Technorati: President Bush, John McCain, NSA, Patriot Act, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Baghdad Bob the Strib's Pollster?

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, September 18, 2006 1:41:10 AM
After reading the Minnesota Poll on Kennedy v. Klobuchar, I have to wonder if they've hired Baghdad Bob as the pollster conducting the MP. They're that outrageous. Here's some of the outrageous lies that they're peddling:

Kennedy does only a little better among men, 35 percent compared with Klobuchar's 53 percent.

People, that's the type of stuff I'd expect to find in Pravda. When Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996, Bob Dole got more votes amongst men than did Bill Clinton. Now I'm supposed to believe that Ms. Klobuchar is maintaining an 18 point gender gap amongst men? That isn't just a lie. It's stuff that would make Baghdad Bob blush.

She has 92 percent of DFLers, 85 percent of liberals, plus 27 percent of conservatives.

Right. I'm supposed to believe that the people who've identified themselves as conservatives are actually conservatives? I don't think so. I'm supposed to believe that 27% of Minnesota conservatives are supporting a tax-hiking, soft-on-crime liberal who wants us to set a timeframe to abandon Iraq? That's pure Barbra Streisand. Minnesota conservatives wouldn't vote for her if they were paid a 7-figure bribe.

Kennedy also has improved his standing among Republicans, 77 percent of whom support him, and conservatives, where he draws 62 percent.

Again, conservatives give Mark Kennedy higher marks than they give Gov. Pawlenty. Yet this Minnesota Poll says that Mark Kennedy draws support from only 62% of conservatives? This isn't just insulting, it's pure propaganda.

Here's the ultimate pile of horse manure:

Most notable to Duffy is that Kennedy has a favorable rating of 44 percent but voter support of only 32 percent. "He's losing...people who view him favorably," Duffy said. "That's hard to do, and it's rare. It tells me that people are looking for change. They like him, but they're looking for something else."

Ms. Duffy should know better than to think that. Did it ever dawn on Ms. Duffy that this makes no sense whatsoever? Saying that "he's losing...people who view him favorably" is like saying "I like him; that's why I won't vote for him." Only a liberal could believe that. Thinking people wouldn't make that analysis. That'd set off all kinds of red flags for most people. Ms. Duffy's statement is insulting to thinking people.

Then again, her statements are the same quality propaganda as the pollitorial.

Technorati: Election 2006, Amy Klobuchar, Mark Kennedy, Minnesota Poll, Agenda Media
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Losing the Will to Fight GWOT?

Posted by Gary Gross on Saturday, September 16, 2006 2:27:45 PM
According to this RCP op-ed, that's clearly what Ed Koch thinks:

We are losing our fighting spirit as a result of the fighting between Republicans and Democrats on just how to prosecute the war. The President calls the war on terror "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation." The President's speech was attacked, as usual, by a number of Democratic party leaders with Senator Ted Kennedy in the lead.
One of the worst attacks on the President came from Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, himself a presidential candidate in 2008. He demanded that the President stop referring to those engaged in terrorist attacks against us and others as Islamic fascists. He said, "Fascist ideology...doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam."

This was a good week for Russ Feingold in terms of solidifying his support amongst the ani-war liberals that are the dominant block of voters in Democratic primaries. It was a bad week for Feingold amongst the other 75 percent of the voting public. His statement that President Bush shouldn't use the term Islamic fascists is dramatically out of touch with mainstream voters.

It's also disgusting that Ted Kennedy lambasted President Bush's speech Monday night:

"The President should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had "nothing" to do with 9/11. There will be time to debate this President’s policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."

It's Ted Kennedy who should be ashamed for all the diatribes against the war, including this statement. Ted Kennedy's diatribes have been spread across the U.S. by the Agenda Media, who'll do anything to cast President Bush in a bad light.

But what about the tens of millions who are terrorists and want to kill us? Does he have a description for them? The media rarely call those engaged in acts of terrorism "terrorists," preferring to refer to them simply as "militants."

These questions clearly show Mayor Koch's dislike for anti-war progressives like Feingold. It's nice seeing Feingold getting called out for his pandering to the Kos Kidz crowd. Unfortunately, Feingold isn't interested in being a serious policymaker. He's only interested in pandering to these anti-war nuts in order to make a presidential run.

Technorati: 9/11, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Daily Kos, 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Running Scared?

Posted by Gary Gross on Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:48:04 AM
That's my thinking when I read this article  about the Cardin-Steele Maryland Senate race. Democrats seem to think they've got reason to be scared, too:

In a DSCC memo, first reported by the Washington Post, Democrats declared "Steele is a unique challenge. Democrats cannot afford to wait until the primary to knock Steele down. A persuasion campaign should start as soon as possible to discredit Steele as a viable candidate for the community."
Republicans said that's a reference to the African-American community. Democrats choose all white males at the top of their ticket in the primary. “I think a big question that comes out is, 'Where will Democrats go?', particularly black Democrats who now have an option of Michael Steele,” said political analyst Donnie Glover.

As I wrote here, Democrats are scared to death of Steele's popularity within the black community. Look at this sentence:

This year, the Maryland Democratic Party commissioned a statewide survey of black voters which showed that 44 percent were open to a Steele candidacy.

Couple that polling with hiphop artist Russell Simmons campaigning for Steele, even appearing in a Steele campaign ad, and you see why Democrats have good reason to be afraid of Steele. The thing is that a Democratic ad blitz against Michael Steele likely will backfire, with blacks seeing the shoddy treatment being given, first to former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, then to Steele. Don't think Maryland blacks will stand for the Democratic Party not including high-profile blacks on their tickets.

In fact, there's been a below-the-radar erosion of 'black monolith'. Here's another tidbit of proof:

Committeewoman Norma Leggette (4th Ward) isn't sure what the Democratic Party stands for anymore. She wonders how she's supposed to excite constituents in her ward about November's elections. Leggette said there are two Democratic parties in St. Louis, one that benefits whites and another that ignores blacks. "At one time, Democrats were a solution for us. I don't know when that changed or why that changed, but it has," Leggette told me.

Almost makes you think that it'd be worthwhile starting a series on what's driving blacks out of the Democratic Party, doesn't it? Democrats are finally coming face-to-face with the reality that their playing the race card simply isn't as effective as it used to be. I don't expect Republicans to get a majority of the black vote in the next 2-3 election cycles but it will happen.

When that day happens, the current Democratic Party will cease to exist as a majority party. Michael Steele is just the leading indicator.

Technorati: Election 2006, Michael Steele, Ben Cardin, DSCC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Amy Klobuchar EXPOSED!!!

Posted by Gary Gross on Friday, September 15, 2006 8:41:38 PM
I spent most of this afternoon digging into Amy Klobuchar's FEC reports, looking to see who's supporting her. What I found was a bombshell. Here's what I found:

Delaney, Anne E New York, NY  10011 Contributed $2,100 to the Klobuchar campaign on April 20, 2006

When I read that the FEC report said that she was a "self-employed artist", red flags aplenty went up. The first question that came to mind was why would a New York City artist contribute $2,100 to a Senate campaign in Minnesota? That question was answered in a Google search.

What I found is that she's a major contributor to a whole host of Democratic causes. Here's what my search yielded:

Anne Delaney  Artist/Self  Contributed to: DNC   Amount: $21,750
Address 467 W 21ST  New York, NY 10011
Anne Delaney   Artist/Self  Contributed to: DNC   Amount: $8,450
Address 467 W 21ST  New York, NY 10011
E Anne Delaney  Artist/Self  Contributed to: Dennis Kucinich  Amount:  $2,000
Address 467 W 21ST  New York, NY 10011
Ms. Anne E Delaney  Artist/Self     Contributed to: John Kerry    Amount:  $1,750
Address 467 W 21ST  New York, NY 10011
Ms. Anne E Delaney  Artist/Self     Contributed to: John Kerry    Amount:  $500
Address 467 W 21ST  New York, NY 10011
Ms. Anne E Delaney  Artist/Self     Contributed to: John Kerry    Amount:  $250
Address 467 W 21ST  New York, NY 10011
Anne E Delaney  Artist/Self employed   Contributed to: Howard Dean  Amount:  $1,300
Address 467 W 21st St   New York, NY 10011

It's obvious that Ms. Delaney isn't your typical starving artist. She's best described as a peace activist. It turns out that Ms. Delaney is a signatory to the Not In My Name petition. NION is also involved in an event next Thursday called the Declaration of Peace. Here's what the homepage of Declaration says:

Take Action to End the US War and Occupation in Iraq!

The Declaration of Peace is a nationwide campaign to establish by September 21, 2006 a concrete and rapid plan for peace in Iraq, including:
  1. a prompt timetable for withdrawal of troops and closure of bases
  2. a peace process for security, reconstruction, and reconciliation
  3. and the shift of funding for war to meeting human needs.
If this plan for peace is not created and activated by Congress by September 21, the International Day of Peace, Declaration signers across the U.S. will engage in nonviolent action in Washington, D.C. and in communities throughout the nation.

If the goals sound familiar, they should. They're very similar to what you'll find on Amy Klobuchar's Issues page on Iraq:
  1. 2006 should be the year that the Iraqi government decreases its dependency on the United States. It should be a year of transition in which we bring a significant number of our troops home.
  2. I oppose establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
  3. As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq.
Minnesotans have to start asking themselves some important questions:
  • Do we want someone who is opposed to winning the war in Iraq?
  • Do we want someone in the U.S. Senate who will represent New York anti-war liberals more than she'll advocate midwestern priorities?
  • Do we want someone in Washington whose positions on the issues sound like they were written by an anti-war special interest group?
That's an easy question for me. I'll take a hard-working accountant over a peace activist attorney anytime.

Technorati: Amy Klobuchar, Mark Kennedy, Not In Our Name, International Day of Peace, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Washington Post Jumps the Shark

Posted by Gary Gross on Friday, September 15, 2006 10:26:49 AM
The Washington Post editors jumped the shark in this editorial. Here's the section that I find most objectionable:

Of course, Mr. Bush didn't come out and say he's lobbying for torture. Instead he refers to "an alternative set of procedures" for interrogation. But the administration no longer conceals what it wants. It wants authorization for the CIA to hide detainees in overseas prisons where even the International Committee of the Red Cross won't have access. It wants permission to interrogate those detainees with abusive practices that in the past have included induced hypothermia and "waterboarding," or simulated drowning. And it wants the right to try such detainees, and perhaps sentence them to death, on the basis of evidence that the defendants cannot see and that may have been extracted during those abusive interrogation sessions.

There is so much hyperbole in that editorial that one wonders if Al Gore didn't write  it. Later in the editorial, the editors say "There's no question that the United States is facing a dangerous foe that uses the foulest of methods." Shame on them for characterizing induced hypothermia is torture. Shame on them for saying that waterboarding shouldn't be used. Shame on them for saying that terrorists should get visits from the ICRC. In the past, the people that've been held in secret prisons have been the very people that plotted the 9/11 attacks, the worst of the worst.

It'll be a sub-zero day in the tropics before I'll want our government treating these monsters with kid gloves.

Before you think that I'm only mad at the Washington Post on this, think again. I've got just as much scorn for Mssrs. Warner, McCain and Graham. McCain of all people should know, as Captain Ed points out here:

"We have yet to fight against a wartime enemy that followed the GC with any consistency at all. The Germans routinely violated it even before Hitler began issuing orders to shoot captured pilots, and the massacre at Malmedy only crystallized what had been fairly brutal treatment at the hands of the Nazis for American prisoners (the Luftwaffe was one notable exception). The Japanese treatment of POWs was nothing short of barbaric, both before and after Bataan. The same is true for the North Koreans and the Chinese in the Korean War, and McCain himself is a routine example of the kind of treatment our men suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese."

All this handwringing about upholding the GC so that our prisoners will be treated properly is nonsense and Mssrs. Warner, McCain and Graham know it. Or is anyone stupid enough to think that McCain was treated according to the GC?

We always hear that using these techniques "brings us down to their level." Let's examine that. If we're doing everything possible to prevent future terrorist attacks, how is that the same as AQ in Iraq torturing someone because they're Jewish? I'd submit to you that it's foolish to compare the two. When Americans pressure terrorists into giving us information that protects innocent civilians, the objective is totally different than Zarqawi torturing, then killing Nicholas Berg.

When dealing with barbarians like Zarqawi, it's best to have him think that you're more ruthless than he is. Putting the 'fear of God' in a terrorist is a good thing.

Technorati: McCain, Geneva Convention, Washington Post, Torture, President Bush
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Amy, Isn't Winning Important, Too???

Posted by Gary Gross on Friday, September 15, 2006 2:36:15 AM
I just went to the Amy Klobuchar for Senate website's issues page. I specifically went there to read her ideas on national security. What a joke. Here's her second recommendation:

I will fight for a change of course in Iraq. 2006 should be the year that the Iraqi government decreases its dependency on the United States. It should be a year of transition in which we bring a significant number of our troops home.

Since April, I have been asking the President to give the nation a clear plan to bring our troops home safely. As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq. In fact, the leaders of Iraq's otherwise sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agreed that there should be a time frame for the drawdown of American troops. If the president is unwilling to provide a plan, Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so. By establishing such a plan and setting a time frame for a drawdown of forces, we send an important signal to the people of Iraq that we do not intend to stay indefinitely and that we expect them to take on the responsibility of governing and securing their own nation. That is why I oppose establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.

I also believe we have to manage our exit from Iraq in a responsible way. I do not support immediate withdrawal of our troops, as has been suggested by some, because the situation is just too precarious. We also must engage other countries in our efforts, including those countries in the region. By making clear that we will not be staying in Iraq indefinitely, we will jumpstart our diplomatic efforts to involve other countries.

As with every Democrat not named Joe Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar talks endlessly about timeframes, "based on specific milestones and benchmarks." Compare that with this exchange between FNS host Chris Wallace and Barbara Boxer:

WALLACE: ...So when you call for a timeframe for withdrawal, what does that mean?
BOXER:  Well, I've said it over and over again. You have benchmarks. The president said, he admitted finally a little bit of an error. He said it was taking too long to train the troops, and they've gotten that down to a reasonable amount. So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up.
So there's no specific timeframe, but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th. We've gone up before the elections, as John Kerry said. We can start bringing those troop levels down, and I'd like to start with the National Guard.

How is Sen. Boxer's statement substantively different from Ms. Klobuchar's? Timeframe for withdrawal...benchmarks. The similarity in their positions brings to mind other questions, specifically these:
  • Why doesn't Sen. Boxer or Ms. Klobuchar talk about winning in Iraq?
  • Why doesn't Ms. Klobuchar say anything about keeping our commitment with a newly created democracy?
  • Are Democrats genetically prone to thinking that hitting a series of difficulties is all that's needed to justify abandoning one our crucial allies in the Gulf region? Does Ms. Klobuchar think that getting our troops out of harm's way is more important than achieving a major goal like helping Iraq become self-sufficient?
  • How can Amy Klobuchar justify abandoning all the Iraqis who defied the terrorists and voted that last Sunday in January, 2005?
  • How can Amy Klobuchar rationalize leaving Iraq before they're able to defend themselves from Iran's mullahs and their proxy Muqtada al-Sadr?
It seems to me that we already have a Minnesota senator who agrees that abandoning an ally in the middle of a fight is good foreign policy. If you think that America keeping her promises is important, then electing Amy Klobuchar shouldn't be important to you. Ms. Klobuchar hasn't talked about honoring our commitment to the heroic Iraqi people. She never will because it isn't important for her or for the Democratic Party.

Technorati: Amy Klobuchar, Iraq Policy, President Bush, Barbara Boxer, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kerry Accuses Bush of Cutting & Running in Afghanistan

Posted by Gary Gross on Friday, September 15, 2006 2:22:30 AM
Jean Francois Kerry made another totally dippy statement today, accusing the Bush administration of cutting and running in Afghanistan. Here's a portion of his statement:

"The administration's Afghanistan policy defines cut and run," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at Howard University on Thursday. "Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man's land."

Sen. Kerry should read the newspapers before making such a stupid comment. The Taliban are trying to mount a comeback of sorts but NATO troops (aka the Allies) keep killing them, according to this CBS article:

An Associated Press reporter who traveled to Pashmul saw warplanes drop five bombs within about 20 minutes on orchards where militants were believed to be hiding. Explosions echoed across grape and pomegranate fields and clouds of dust rose amid the greenery and dried-mud houses of the Panjwayi district, which is about 12 miles from Kandahar city.
Operation Medusa was launched Saturday to flush out Taliban fighters from Panjwayi and neighboring Zhari district. NATO spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy said alliance and Afghan troops had gained ground and disrupted the militants' command system so guerrillas were moving in confusion. Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said Taliban casualties were high, but could not confirm the NATO report of more than 200 dead.
A NATO statement said its figure was derived from "surveillance and reconnaissance assets operating in Panjwayi and Zhari districts, as well as information reported by various Afghan officials and citizens living nearby." About 80 other suspected Taliban were arrested by Afghan police and a further 180 fled the area, it said.

Frankly, I'm betting that the Taliban are wishing that the allies would cut and run. They're SOL, though, because Democrats don't occupy the White House.

It's also worth noting that his statement today is a signal that Kerry wants to run for president again. Couple that statement with his interview with the Washington Examiner, where he said that he was "prepared to kick [the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth] a$$ from one end of America to the other" and you get the impression that he's running again.

What this means to me is that Kerry still thinks of himself in presidential terms even though most people don't take him seriously. How can you take him seriously when he makes statements like that?

Technorati: Taliban, NATO, Afghanistan, President Bush
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary Shafts Dean

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:51:16 PM
This Newsmax article  highlights the divisions within the Democratic Party. Specifically, this shows the divisions between the Deaniacs and the Clintonistas.

A longtime aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton has launched a massive data mining project in a bid to get the Democrat vote out in 2006 and 2008, a direct snub to DNC chairman Howard Dean, whose job it is to run his party's turnout machine. Harold Ickes, who strategized Mrs. Clinton's first Senate campaign, as well as others involved in the project, tell the Washington Post that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence in Dean. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," Ickes complained, before slamming Dean's operation. "It's unclear what the DNC is doing. [Are their lists] going to be kept up to date?"

Folks, those last two sentences are a direct shot at Dean and his disciples. That entire paragraph is a shot at the misadministration of the DNC by Dean. It's also confirmation that Hillary's running for president in 08. She wouldn't put this type of data mining operation if she didn't have need for the information it'd generate.

Meanwhile, feathers have been clearly ruffled over at DNC headquarters. "Building this voter file is part of our job," Dean spokeswoman Karen Finney told the Post. "Our job is to build the infrastructure of the party." In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the DNC began building it's own voter data base and it proved highly effective in raising money.

That's Democrats' idea of unity? If you factor in Dean's war with Rahm Emanuel, it's obvious that the two camps within the Democratic Party are at war with each other. The DLC types hate the Kos Kidz and the Kos Kidz hate the DLC.

Technorati: Howard Dean, Hillary, Rahm Emanuel, Election 2006, Election 2008
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi Criticizes Murtha...Again

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:47:41 PM
The sweet thing is that she likely didn't even realize she was criticizing him. The basis for the headline is found in this Irey press release:

"Yesterday, in criticizing a resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the Woman Who Would Be Speaker, criticized the legislation, calling the resolution 'self-congratulatory,' and saying, 'It praises Congress for some reason. Instead of having the focus on the innocent victims of 9/11, it talked about the accomplishments of this Congress. I can't even imagine why they thought that was a good idea.'

The thing is, John Murtha congratulated himself on 9/11,  by highlighting his getting approved funding for the Memorial to be built in Shanksville where Flight 93 crashed. Here's a little sampling of Murtha's 9/11 press release:

2001: Championed the "Counter-Terrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction" section of the Defense appropriation which increased the funding for national security programs aimed specifically at the terrorist threat from three percent to over 29 percent. The legislation also included $1 million to provide security at the Flight 93 crash site over two years.
2002: Introduced legislation to designate the Flight 93 crash site as a National Memorial
2003: Obtained $300,000 for the Flight 93 Memorial and worked with PBS Coals to encourage their donation of 29 acres around the crash site to permanently protect this hallowed ground.
2004: Obtained $298,000 for the planning of the Flight 93 Memorial
2005: Obtained $806,000 for the Flight 93 Memorial/National Park Service Construction and another $250,000 for Security Costs for the Memorial site for Somerset County.  Introduced legislation with Congressman Bill Shuster to commemorate the heroes of Flight 93 with a memorial in the U.S. Capitol. Furthermore, in 2005, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee proposed to kill the funding for the Flight 93 Memorial.  Congressman Murtha, however, convinced the committee to not only reinstate funding, but to provide $12.5 million as the federal share for the project over several years with an equal match by other memorial fundraising.
2006: Obtained $1 million for the Flight 93 Memorial Planning

It seems to me that, using Ms. Pelosi's standards, that Mr. Murtha used 9/11 to congratulate himself "instead of focusing on the innocent victims of 9/11." It also seems to me that Murtha politicized 9/11 by telling people to vote for him because he's able to influence their lives through the appropriations process.

Technorati: Murtha, Pelosi, United 93
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Activists Had Other Ideas

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:16:13 AM
Ron Brownstein's LA Times article  laments the difficulty so-called moderates had in Tuesday's primaries. I guess the activists weren't in the mood to heed the pundits' advice. Here's one statement from Mr. Brownstein's column with which I've always agreed:

The latest nationwide round of primaries demonstrated the persistence, and limits, of the ideological challenge faced by moderates in both parties during an age of intense political polarization.

Forget the "age of intense political polarization." There's never been a time when so-called moderates had vast political appeal. NEVER.

More Republicans are facing serious challenges than Democrats. Among the four senators who have received less than 75% of the vote in primaries this year, the only Democrat was Lieberman. Of the 23 House members who did not crack the 75% level before Tuesday, 15 were Republicans, Cook said.

This is a prelude to 2008, when I expect it to be open season on RINO's. I'm usually a 'Big Tent' Republican but some of the RINO's out there are trying to tie the hands of our interrogators. Others are openly critical of the President at every turn. That's simply unnacceptable.

In Arizona on Tuesday, Randy Graf, a staunch conservative who stressed his opposition to illegal immigration, defeated two moderates for the GOP nomination to succeed Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, another moderate. Republican fears that Graf may not be able to hold the closely balanced district were instantly fanned Wednesday when Kolbe announced he would not endorse the nominee because of their "profound and fundamental differences."

This race in particular should send a message to Washington on the immigration issue. Expect Randy Graf to win this district going away. Graf ran as a no-nonsense on immigration platform and beat the White House's prefered candidate. The RNC worked against Graf and he still won. It's time that politicians realized that immigration is an issue that generates alot of visceral reactions. It's an issue in which triangulation doesn't work. You're either for tight enforcement or you aren't.

The politicians who don't harness the anti-immigration energy will have a rough go of it. The moderates are the most likely candidates/incumbents to not recognize and/or adjust to this.

Technorati: Election 2006, Illegal Immigration
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCaskill's Bad Week Continues

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:38:57 AM
Claire McCaskill's disastrous week continues. A day after she was caught on tape admitting to illegally using public employees for her GOTV operation  this November, she's now caught with another big problem. Here's what the AP is reporting:

Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill claims that as a member of the state Legislature, she voted to override a 1990 budget veto of an ethanol incentive fund. But McCaskill never actually cast that vote. She wasn't even a legislator in 1990. McCaskill's campaign acknowledged Wednesday that it "made a minor clerical error" when compiling a fact sheet to back up its recent radio ads highlighting energy issues.

Why should we believe McCaskill's campaign when they say it's just a simple clerical error? This is the woman that tried inciting racial hatred towards her opponent by accusing President Bush of being a racist and who said that the Kansas City and St. Louis mayors had "donated 150 employees to work on the election on Election Day."

That's just in the past week.

She has a history of ethical problems prior to this, too:
  • The federal Office of Special Counsel is probing charges that Jackson County law enforcement employees were improperly directed by the sheriff, a McCaskill political ally, to appear in McCaskill campaign ads in uniform, on public time during her failed 2004 campaign for governor.
  • McCaskill also has come under fire by faxing campaign materials to state offices during state time in her current campaign.
In other words, this woman is a walking, breathing ethical disaster. She might stand a chance at winning in New Orleans or possibly in New Jersey. Unfortunately for her, she lives in Missouri. This type of behavior won't fly there.

I said yesterday that experts would soon take the Talent-McCaskill race out of the toss-up category. I'm revising that today to say that they'll soon have to put this into the solidly Republican category.

Get out the margarine for Mrs. McCaskill because she's toast.

Technorati: Claire McCaskill, Culture of Corruption, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Franken Gets His Just Desserts

Posted by Gary Gross on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:38:53 PM
I caught a headline that's left me smiling from ear to ear. Here's that headline:

Air America Stiffs Franken

If that doesn't put a smile on your face, then get back over to DU or Kos. Here's some of the details to the article:

Al Franken confirms that, once again, the troubled network is facing a serious cash crunch. "I don't know if that's true or not," Franken tells Radar when asked about the bankruptcy report. "We do know that there have been cash-flow problems. I haven't been paid in a while. Like, there's no cash flowing to me."

Awww. Ain't that just too bad? I can't tell you just how many tears I'll shed for Mr. Franken.

Norman Wain, a Cleveland-based former radio executive and investor in Air America, says he hadn't heard about any financial difficulties. "I know nothing about it," he says. "They don't communicate with investors very well. They only come to us when they're looking for more money." The last time that happened, he says, was "three or four months ago."

Typical liberal thinking. Always with the hand out looking for other peoples' money.

Technorati: Air America, Al Franken, Talk Radio
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reid, Pelosi Talk National Security

Posted by Gary Gross on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:38:03 PM
Just when you thought things couldn't get more bizarre, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi met with foreign policy failures Madeline Albright, Gen. Wesley Clark and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here's the most laughable quote in their press release, courtesy of Ms. Pelosi:

"Keeping America safe is our first responsibility as elected officials. Democrats have a record of achievement in national security and sound ideas about how to combat terrorism, change course toward success in Iraq and protect the American people."

That brief statement is so full of things that I can discredit that it's hard to pick a spot to start but here goes:

"Democrats have a record of achievement in national security..."

What might those achievements be? Harry Reid bragging about killing the Patriot Act? Or might it be John Murtha saying that we should "immediately redeploy" our troops outside Iraq? Or might it be Russ Feingold saying that filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act was "a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism?

Does Ms. Pelosi think of meeting with CAIR to think of ways to prevent the reauthorization of the Patriot Act is a proud achievement in protecting America?

How can Ms. Pelosi say with a straight face that immediately 'redeploying' troops out of Iraq is a course change "toward success in Iraq"? Since when is getting out of Iraq a success in winning the war against the jihadists?

Pelosi and Reid didn't do themselves any favors by inviting Zbigniew Brzezinski to this meeting. Mr. Brzezinski is the 'architect' of the most miserable foreign policy in presidential history. Mr. Brzezinski and President Carter made one disastrous decision after another. It was Mr. Brzezinski who recommended opening a dialog with Ayatollah Khomeini, convincing Khomeini that America would remain passive while he started the global jihadist movement.

"One week ago, Democratic senators and representatives wrote to President Bush, urging him to work with us to find a new way forward in Iraq," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "Judging by his comments to the nation Monday night, he isn't interested in working with us. President Bush is still determined to 'stay-the-course,' even if the course is making America less safe and Iraq less stable. Democrats have laid out a way forward in Iraq. It's tough. It's smart. And it will refocus our military on the real threats we face. Protecting America should not be a partisan issue. Democrats stand united behind real security for America. It's time for the President to join us."

Sen. Reid, I ask again what's so tough or smart about reneging on our commitment to an emerging democracy? It seems to me that anyone can choose to not live up to a promise. As for the President not being interested in working with Democrats in finding a "new way forward in Iraq," who can blame him when the only "way forward" that Senate Democrats are interested in is leaving Iraq?

Technorati: Cut and Run, Homeland Security, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, President Bush, Patriot Act
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »