Thursday - February 22, 2007
Ann Goes Off On Murtha
John Murtha: Caving In to Arabs Since 1980
-- by Ann Coulter
(HUMAN EVENTS) - 02/21/2007
Rumored ex-Marine John Murtha, Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania, has become the darling of the cut-and-run crowd for trying to place absurd restrictions on our troops, amounting to withdrawal from Iraq. Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?
In case you missed the video on “I Love the ‘80s,” Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI’s Abscam investigation in 1980. The Abscam investigation was conducted by Jimmy Carter’s Justice Department, not right-wing Republicans.
On tape, Murtha told the undercover FBI agent: “When I make a f***in’ deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I’m doing and ... what I’m sayin’ is, a few investments in my district ...”
It is a profound and shocking fact that Murtha even showed up at this meeting, knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.
Murtha added that he wanted the investment in his district to look like it was done “legitimately ... when I say legitimately, I’m talking about so these bastards up here can’t say to me ... ‘Jesus Christ, ah, this happened,’ then he (someone else), in order to get immunity so he doesn’t go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart.”
For those of you just joining us, no, this isn’t a scene from “The Sopranos.” It’s an actual conversation between a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.
Murtha further said that although he was not prepared to accept cash at that time, “after we’ve done some business, then I might change my mind.” You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.
The ever-helpful media exposed the Abscam investigation before it could be completed, and consequently we were deprived of the possibility of seeing Murtha on tape stuffing cash in his trousers like the other Democratic congressmen (and one “moderate” Republican) convicted in the Abscam investigation. Or, as Al Gore used to call such a fund-raising procedure, “community outreach.”
- Much, much MORE of this rant from Ann at Human Events Online (Enjoy!) ...
on 02/22/2007 at 05:22 AM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Don’t Look Back
There are days when I wake up and wonder if half the world has gone stark, raving mad. Today is one of those days. I think it was this cartoon that set me off today. All I hear from peaceniks, Liberals, Leftists and their Democratic Party stooges nowadays is “VIETNAM”. They yell “get out now” and “quagmire” and “lessons of Vietnam” and on and on and on, resurrecting the dread ghost of Vietnam Past, rattling its chains of horrendous mistakes and losing effort in a lost cause.
For the education of the illiterate peaceniks out there who seem to be missing several clues, let me make three very important points: (1) the Viet Cong never attacked America or killed American citizens inside our country, (2) the Viet Cong never planned on following us home and bringing the war to our shores and in fact they have left us alone, (3) the Vietnam War was lost, not by the soldiers in the field, but by an extremely vocal segment of the American people back home who, in a fit of pique, destroyed the old Democratic Party in 1968, dropped support for our troops and dishonored them when they came home, consorted with the enemy and finally convinced enough of the “new” Liberal Democrats in Congress to cut off all funding and throw the Vietnamese to the wolves.
Now you may notice first of all that items (1) and (2) do not apply to our present enemy in the War On Terror. They have already killed American citizens here in our midst and they have sworn openly and repeatedly that they will follow us home if we don’t defeat them over there. Unlike the Viet Cong their goal is not to win a country and drive Americans and democracy out. Their goal is to kill “infidels” - everywhere around the world. That would be you and me.
Which brings me to item (3) ... which does seem to apply to our present situation. Once again the same rabble-rousing crowd is clamoring for withdrawal and claiming to support the troops while emboldening the enemy with public demonstrations. Democratic politicians and celebrities are going to Iran, Syria and other countries consorting with people who have publicly announced their intent to drive us out and follow us home.
Finally, the ghost of Vietnam Past is indeed rearing its ugly head in the US Congress as newly empowered Democrats are already sliding down the slippery slope of defunding the war, forcing a withdrawal of our troops prematurely ... and throwing another country to the wolves.
What is obvious here is that the radical elements of our population learned the lesson of Vietnam and are applying the same tactics today to gain the same dishonorable result. My question to you is, “did the rest of us learn anything from Vietnam”? Are we going to sit back quietly like we did before and allow these nihilists and anarchists to pull off the same hideous betrayal that they managed in the early 1970’s?
They haven’t changed their tactics even though the enemy we face is determined to destroy us this time. We need to change our tactics with respect to the internal troublemakers - or else this time we’re going to lose much more than our honor.
Mike Lester - The Rome News-Tribune (GA)
on 02/22/2007 at 04:35 AM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Nancy’s Hissy Fit
I have raised two boys. They are both fine men nowadays, having grown up and gone out on their own. It seems like just yesterday though that my afternoon reading or watching the news on TV was being interrupted by one or the other of them pitching what I call a “hissy fit”. That’s a Southern description of a person (usually young) screwing up their face into a horrible grimace, crying great big tears of indignation and screaming at the top of their lungs about some horrific evil that was just done to them - most often by a sibling.
My response to their hissy fits involved three steps: (1) slowly turn my head, make eye contact with the monster midget and give him “the look” (that patient but evil glaring look that only fathers know how to give), (2) if the wailing persisted I gave them “the growl” (that deep-throated Dad voice asking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y “YOU GOT A PROBLEM?”, (3) if that didn’t quieten the storm I went to DefCon Three (reach out, grab the little brat, pick him up and put on my angry voice, yelling at him “THAT’S IT! I’M TAKING YOU BOTH TO THE ORPHANAGE AND GIVING YOU BACK!").
I rarely had to go all the way to (3) - fear trumps anger all the time. To this day they’re not 100% sure they weren’t adopted and can be traded back in any time. They also know not to pitch a hissy fit - especially around the Old Man.
It’s too bad Nancy Pelosi didn’t have a Dad like me. I don’t care if she is a grandmother nowadays. I’m afraid I’d have to DefCon Three all over her bony ass for this behavior. You can read what Cheney said below - seems to me he was just “tellin’ it like it is.” Little Nancy got her feathers all ruffled and went running to Daddy (Bush) who probably told his secretary to tell Little Nancy he was in a meeting and then ducked into the bathroom to avoid having to listen to a grown woman pitch a hissy fit. Sad, but true.
This childish behavior seems to be a trademark of modern-day Democrats. They pout and cry when they lose elections. They pitch hissy fits if the election was close. They call the adults names and get all indignant when they think someone is picking on them. They scream, wail, moan, cry, whine and just generally make life miserable for the adults (like you and me and Dubya).
Isn’t there some orphanage somewhere that we can return these obnoxious brats too?
Pelosi Calls Bush to Complain of Cheney’s
Comments on Democrats’ Iraq Strategy
WASHINGTON (FOX NEWS) - Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney’s comments wrongly questioned critics’ patriotism and ignored Bush’s call for openness on Iraq strategy.
“You cannot say as the president of the United States, ‘I welcome disagreement in a time of war,’ and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country,” the speaker said.
The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush’s request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.
“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy,” the vice president told ABC News. “The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”
Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney’s criticism of Democrats was “beneath the dignity of the debate we’re engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support.”
“And you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said,” Pelosi said. “It has no place in our debate.” Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats’ patriotism, she said.
Later, Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters.
“I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment,” Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney “was not questioning anyone’s patriotism.” But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha’s “position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue.”
Pelosi said she hopes “the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president’s remarks.” In the interview, Cheney also said Britain’s plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq — while the United States adds more troops — was a positive step. “I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” the vice president said.
In response to that statement, Pelosi said: “If it’s going so well, we’d like to withdraw our troops as well.”
on 02/22/2007 at 03:51 AM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Wednesday - February 21, 2007
Happy Hour Humor
New Orleans Safer Than Baghdad? Maybe. Maybe not.
This happened on a flight getting ready to depart for New Orleans .
Jack was sitting on the plane when a guy took the seat beside him.
The guy was an emotional wreck, pale, hands shaking, moaning in fear.
“What’s the matter?” Jack asked.
“I’ve been transferred to New Orleans , there’s crazy people there. They’ve got lots of shootings, gangs, race riots, drugs, poor public schools, and the highest crime rate.”
Jack replied, “I’ve lived in New Orleans all my life. It’s not as bad as the media says. Find a nice home, go to work, mind your own business, enroll your kids in a nice private school. It’s as safe a place as anywhere in the world.”
The guy relaxed and stopped shaking and said, “Oh, thank you. I’ve been worried to death. But if you live there and say it’s OK, I’ll take your word for it. What do you do for a living?”
“Me?” said Jack. “I’m a tail gunner on a Budweiser truck.”
Lost!
Not lost this time either. At least not too lost. I left our last “Lost” location and started flying North. I’m still over CONUS and what I believe is one of the oldest US Air Force bases in the world down below. I could be wrong but it sure looks like .... Yep, there’s a large Army base off my right wing tip. Tell me where I am, Zoomies! You have 5 minutes. Ready - Set - GOOOOooooooo .....
(Click image for larger 1065x915 in popup window)
(Photo from Google Earth Desktop)
Motivational Poster Of The Day
Through The Looking Glass
Greenland
I haven’t harassed the Glowbull Warming Freaks in a few days so here goes. I’ll let former Delaware Governor Pete DuPont jump on them today, although he is just repeating what I’ve been saying for quite some time - the idiots who are selling this bullshit are taking a narrow set of climate data (the last hundred years) and basing their (fake) assessment on a bottom-up approach. Pure horse-feathers.
Is the planet warming? YES. I’ll grant you that - but “why?” is the bone of contention. I take a top down approach, i.e., what are the biggest factors in climate change from top to bottom. I start with the Sun (that HUGE hydrogen bomb continuously going off only 93 million miles away), then the planet (a drop of molten rock and superheated iron covered with a thin layer of dried dirt), then the arrogant hairless monkeys ruling the planet (who think SUV’s are cool). I also prefer to look at climate data from the entirety of Earth’s history (as much as we have knowledge of) and not just the data from last week.
For now though, I’ll step aside and let Governor DuPont fill you in ...
Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool
-- BY PETE DU PONT
(WALL STREET JOURNAL) - Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars’s southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet.
Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that “the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming.”
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century’s warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down.
According to “Climate Change and Its Impacts,” a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and “average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s.” British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet “grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year,” and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.
Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)
Republican Governor Mitt Romney had barely left office in TaxatwoShits before his successor, Democrat Deval Patrick started hosing the people by ordering a $46,000 luxury car and $28,000 worth of new drapes and furniture for the Governor’s office. Stop me if you’ve heard this joke before ...
Patrick ran on a platform of “shared sacrifice”, environmental awareness and the need to cut back spending - all typical Democratic platform lies. I’m really beginning to wonder about the folks in TaxaTwoShits who keep electing Kennedy, Kerry and morons like Patrick. Can they all be completely stupid or are the polls rigged?
Either way, this gets the selection for “Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day”, and maybe for the week. Wake up, TaxaTwoShits! Elect some political leaders who are worth TwoShits - for a change ...
Patrick To Repay Taxpayers For Decor
$10,000 spent for drapes; governor to offset car costs
(BOSTON GLOBE) - February 21, 2007
At the same time, Patrick said he would contribute $543 each month to the lease of the Cadillac DTS he uses for state business, bringing the cost to the public in line with the more modest Ford Crown Victoria used by Governor Mitt Romney.
Patrick, who just days ago defiantly defended his lease of the $46,000 luxury car, said he changed his mind after a weekend spent struggling with the state’s dismal finances and the budget cuts he has asked his agency leaders to make to bridge a deficit of at least $1 billion.
“I realize I cannot in good conscience ask the agencies to make those choices without being willing to make them myself,” Patrick said in a statement released late yesterday. Aides declined to permit a Globe photographer to photograph the new furniture or the draperies, hung at the enormous windows overlooking Boston Common. Patrick’s reversal occurred after huddling with advisers about how to deal with a rising political and media storm, the first of his seven-week-old administration.
In his statement, Patrick said he replaced items that Romney had personally owned and taken with him when he left office. But Romney left behind drapes, a desk, and other furniture, according to Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for the former governor. Kyle Sullivan, Patrick’s press secretary, later said that the drapes left behind had fallen off the wall because of crumbling plaster. The governor’s aides declined to provide a breakdown of the costs of the furniture. An administration source who asked not to be named confirmed that the drapes cost $10,000.
Patrick’s sudden change is a calculated shift to defuse the mounting criticism and ridicule he has been facing over the lease of the Cadillac. It occurred as many in the political world began to question his judgment, particularly his initial blithe dismissal of the criticism of his car lease. Some of his Democratic supporters were privately speculating that he was operating with a tin ear and with a staff that has little experience in shaping a governor’s image or understanding the implications of seemingly insignificant decisions that can dominate the news.
His political opponents lost no time taking aim at his missteps. “He’s learning how important symbolism is,” said House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. , Republican of North Reading. “To be doing these things at the same time he’s saying, ‘My campaign made commitments I can’t keep’—like 1,000 police officers or property tax relief—that doesn’t sit well with the public. At a time of shared sacrifice, not sharing in the sacrifice personally is the wrong thing to do.”
on 02/21/2007 at 10:49 AM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Gitmo Detainees Denied By Court
Here we go again. The filthy scum lost their legal trickery again. I’m referring to the lawyers representing the Gitmo detainees. The last time we went through this, the Supreme Court said no, it wasn’t right the way they were being handled and Congress should write a law specifying how they should be handled. So Congress passed legislation (which was signed into law).
So the detainees managed to contact a new bunch of lawyers who filed suit again, alleging the new law was unconstitutional. So now we’ve come full circle and once again a federal appeals court has upheld the law and told the detainees to go take a hike - which means it is now going to the Supreme Court AGAIN.
If SCOTUS has any sense at all they’ll decide not to even hear this farce of a case. I urge Chief Justice Roberts to toss this one. HOWEVER ... Democrats in Congress are already rattling their chains and now that they’re in power they want to change the rules (and the law) again. You can guess who the bleeding heart lamestream media is rooting for.
Lawyers ... Democrats ... Media. They themselves need to be detained at Gitmo. Although my personal preference would be to drop them all off on Devil’s Island with the other snakes and sharks ...
Court Endorses Law’s Curbs on Detainees
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - February 21, 2007
The decision set the stage for a third trip to the Supreme Court for the detainees, who will once again ask the justices to consider a complex issue that tests the balance of power among the White House, Congress and the courts in the murky context of the fight against international terrorism.
It also prompted some senior Democratic lawmakers, who have fought the Bush administration on the matter before and who now hold sway in Congress, to vow enactment of a law more favorable to the prisoners.
The Supreme Court previously ruled twice that federal statutes empowered the courts to consider Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions challenging the grounds for their detention. In response to those rulings, Congress twice rewrote law to limit the detainees’ avenues of appeal. The most recent rewriting was at issue in Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision.
That law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was signed by President Bush last October. Its enactment followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of his administration’s earlier arguments that the right of habeas corpus — the fundamental right, centuries old, to ask a judge for release from unjust imprisonment — did not apply to foreigners being held outside the United States as enemy combatants.
The new law explicitly eliminated the federal courts’ jurisdiction over habeas challenges by such prisoners. It instead set up military panels to review the justification of detention in individual cases, with limited right of appeal to the courts afterward.
In its ruling Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the new law did not violate the constitutional provision that bars the government from suspending habeas corpus except in “cases of rebellion or invasion.” Two of the three appeals court judges, citing Supreme Court and other historical precedent, held that the right of habeas corpus did not extend to foreign citizens detained outside the United States.
The majority decision was written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, whose two earlier opinions on habeas corpus and Guantánamo prisoners had also favored the Bush administration. Those opinions were reversed by the Supreme Court, but on statutory grounds rather than constitutional ones. The dissenting judge on Tuesday, Judith W. Rogers, said the new law did violate the constitutional provision restricting the suspension of habeas corpus.
Administration officials welcomed the decision as a vindication of its position on the rights of detainees, after years of its halting efforts to create a legal process that would withstand tests in court.
“The decision,” said Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, “reaffirms the validity of the framework that Congress established in the Military Commissions Act permitting Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detention through combatant status review tribunals with the opportunity for judicial review before the D.C. Circuit.”
Lawyers representing the detainees vowed to seek a new review by the Supreme Court. Shayana Kadidal, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many of the detainees, said, “This decision empowers the president to do whatever he wishes to prisoners without any legal limitation as long as he does it offshore.”
Mr. Kadidal said the ruling encouraged “a contempt for international human rights law” and “such notorious practices as extraordinary rendition”: sending terrorism suspects abroad for interrogation, where, rights advocates say, they may face torture.
Democrats now in control of Congress said they would move quickly on legislation they recently introduced that would unambiguously give federal courts the right to consider detainees’ habeas petitions.
“The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Last week Mr. Leahy joined a group of other Senate Democrats, including Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, in introducing the legislation restoring habeas rights for the Guantánamo prisoners. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, also endorsed that measure last week, and said Tuesday that he believed the dissent from the new appeals court decision would ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court.
But other Republican lawmakers, including Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both of whom also serve on the committee, applauded the ruling.
on 02/21/2007 at 09:30 AM
Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Terrorists • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Exit Britannia
No one should be surprised that the Brits are starting to pull out of Iraq. Neither should anyone be complaining either. Our friends have done an admirable job in the south of Iraq and from what I can see and hear, they have accomplished their mission and it’s time for them to go home.
To me this is not a bad sign but rather a good sign that progress is being made in Iraq and bodes well for our own future in that benighted country. The Brits took responsibility for the south of Iraq which is almost entirely Shiite so the Brits have not had to contend with the sectarian violence we have seen in Baghdad.
They have lost 136 troops but have managed to get their area under control and turn things over to the Iraqi troops and police - which is what the US hopes to do in the rest of the country - if Congress quits trying to meddle in the conduct of the war. At least the British government hasn’t acted like a bunch of spoiled children, stabbing each other in the back over Iraq and maneuvering for political edge - like the blowhards in Washington have been doing.
No, our British allies have quietly gone about doing their job and now they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and can prepare to leave. We owe them a big thanks for their efforts and for sticking by us when the rest of the world thumbed their noses at us.
Now, if only the US Congress can put away their surrender flags long enough for US troops to accomplish the same thing, this all might come out OK in the end. We shall see. So far, the surge in Iraq is paying dividends. Significant progress has already been made in quieting the boiling cauldron that is Sunni-Shiite hell that is Baghdad.
To our Brit friends I can only say, “Thanks, Mates!”. We owe ya one ...
Blair to Announce Iraq Withdrawal Plan
LONDON (MYWAY NEWS) - Feb 21, 1:00 AM (ET)
Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. and The Sun newspaper said, quoting government officials who weren’t further identified.
The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain’s forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.
The announcement comes as President Bush implements an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq, but while some of the other coalition partners are pulling out: The Italians and Slovaks have left, and the Danes and the South Koreans want to start withdrawing.
Blair and Bush talked by secure video link Tuesday morning, and Bush views Britain’s troop cutbacks as “a sign of success” in Iraq, said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
“While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we’re pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis,” Johndroe said in Washington.
Britain has long been the most important coalition member in Iraq after the United States. But Blair knows the British public and politicians from his own Labour Party want the troops out as quickly as possible, and don’t want to see Britain stick with the United States in Iraq for the long haul.
Militarily, a British withdrawal isn’t likely to have much effect on the stepped-up U.S. operation in Baghdad or the war with the Sunnis in Anbar province west of the Iraqi capital. However, Iraqi forces could have a tough time maintaining security in mostly Shiite southern Iraq, including Basra city.
Blair’s Downing Street office refused to comment on the report, which also said Blair would tell the Commons that if the situation worsens on the ground on Iraq, his new game plan could change.
A British government official confirmed that Blair would make a statement to the Commons on Wednesday on the status of British forces in Iraq. The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
Johndroe said that “the United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq. ... President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad.”
“We want to bring our troops homes as well,” Johndroe said. “It’s the model we want to emulate, to turn over more responsibilities to Iraqis and bring our troops home. That’s the goal and always has been.”
At a news conference in Brussels on Jan. 15, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was not bothered that Britain was “planning a drawdown at some point this year in their forces in the south.”
He said Basra’s security situation was much different than Baghdad’s.
Fragged Again
Michael Ramirez - Investors Business Daily
Tuesday - February 20, 2007
Though The Looking Glass
“Too Close!”
Lost!
HEY! I know that base down yonder. All those trees and that river to the right. That huge chunk of support buildings to the left. I been here before. In fact, The Skipper has flown into and out of this base many times while he was in the USAF. During the winter months up in North Dakota, SAC used to have what they called “incentive flights” to allow airmen to fly down South for a few days to build up morale. They loaded us up in those web seats in the back of a KC-135 and hauled us (freezing to death) down to Dixie. Which is where this base is. And it’s on my mind. Now tell me where I am!
(Click image for larger 1065x915 in popup window)
(Photo from Google Earth Desktop)
Motivational Poster Of The Day
Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)
LET ALIENS VOTE: ACTIVISTS
(NEW YORK POST) - February 20, 2007
“More than 50,000 adult noncitizen taxpayers in those two districts are disenfranchised by citizenship voting laws,” said Cheryl Wertz, of New Immigrant Community Empowerment, referring to today’s special election for council seats in Brooklyn and Staten Island.
Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn), the sponsor of the Voting Rights Restoration Act, said that years ago, when immigrants were mostly European, they had voting rights.
“Then when the complexion of immigrants changes, then all of a sudden, the laws change,” he said. Ron Hayduk, a CUNY professor, concurred, saying immigrants voted in national elections from 1776 through 1926.
on 02/20/2007 at 02:02 PM
Illegal-Aliens and Immigration • Stoopid-People • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
![[ Registered ]](/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
