Why Are the Democrats So Touchy?
May 15, 2008 Political
The Democrats are up in arms over remarks that President Bush made while in Israel celebrating that country’s 60th anniversary. The President was speaking about terrorists, an appropriate subject given who surrounds Israel, when he made remarks that got the Democrat’s panties in a wad:
In his speech, Bush said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” The Crypt
Immediately the Democrats assumed that Bush was taking a veiled swipe at Obama who has advocated talking to terrorists. In fact, many people and countries have held this particular belief. France and Germany believed that talking was in order as did many Democrats as they moved to distance themselves from their vote to go to war. I would be remiss if I did not mention Jimmy Carter (who would be a more likely target) and his terrorist ties. But it was Obama, they say, who was attacked.
Why are the Democrats so touchy? Is it because they know that Obama lacks foreign policy experience? Why did they assume that Bush was talking about him when there are so many to whom the statement applies? Obama immediately went on the defensive and was supported by Joe Biden (a man with a great deal of foreign policy experience), Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel who all criticized the President. I think they are a bit touchy because they know that Bush was right and Obama is wrong. They took it to heart because that is what Obama believes and has said.
Two other interesting pieces from the article:
The White House insists that Bush was “referring to a wide range of people, not any single person.” But Obama’s campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.
~snip~
As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”
The President was completely correct and Speaker Pelosi’s reaction only confirms my suspicion that she knows Obama is weak in that area and that he is wrong on the subject. They know he is weak and they are trying to protect him. Emanuel is way out of line. Pelosi and an endless line of Democrats have gone to exotic places like Syria and talked badly about President Bush’s policies. Pelosi broke the law by performing the job of the State Department, an Executive Branch department.
I would let Adam down if I did not take my obligatory swipe at Bill Clinton. He did his protesting in a foreign nation as a college student and has not been shy in his criticisms of our current president regardless of where Bill happens to be at the time.
There was a story earlier that indicated the Republicans would attack Obama on his lack of foreign policy experience. From the visceral reaction to the President’s statement I’d say they might be on to something.
Related story:
My Way News
Obama Sounds Like George Bush
May 4, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has made a lot of noise about his opposition to the Iraq war and he has chided Hillary Clinton for her vote on the matter. He has also told America that Clinton (and John McCain for that matter) are part of the old politics in DC and that he was the candidate of change. Obama touts himself as a DC outsider who will do things differently. Today he stated that Hillary Clinton sounded a lot like George Bush because of a statement she made last month.
Hillary Clinton was asked what she would do, as president, if Iran attacked Israel. Clinton stated that the US would attack Iran in retaliation and she stated that they should know we would obliterate them. At the time Iran claimed that her words were a violation of UN charter. Seems that when Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map that is not a violation but when we threaten to do the same it is. Typical Muslim thinking.
Obama also took a shot at Clinton for her proposal to suspend the gasoline tax for the Summer (it was actually McCain’s proposal with which Hillary agrees). Obama said that this was a classic Washington gimmick that would only save people $28.
Now I understand Mr. “I was always against the war” and his platform of non aggression. It took him 20 years to realize his pastor was an aggressive man who hated white people so I can understand how he is slow to recognize threats. However, Obama said that Clinton sounded like George Bush with her statement about obliterating Iran because, of course, it involves aggression.
But if Clinton sounds like George Bush for her statement then who does Obama sound like with this statement?
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said. al Reuters [emphasis mine]
Here is Obama saying that if we have actionable intelligence he would attack inside another nation with or without permission. Sounds a bit like what he accuses the Bush administration of doing in Iraq. Also sounds like what he chastised Clinton for. I would think Iran attacking Israel is “actionable intelligence” and that attacking Iran in that instance is certainly more appropriate than just invading Pakistan.
Therefore, Obama advocates the same policies that he has castigated since he decided to run for office. Using his own standards, Obama sounds just like George Bush.
As for the gimmick of gas taxes. I agree that a suspension of them will hardly make a dent in anything especially since the states will still tax and most tax at a higher rate than the feds. I see that Obama though, has taken issue with his opponents and mentioned that they are engaging in a clasic Washington gimmick. So where was Obama when Nancy Pelosi sponsored the Economic Relief Package that redistributed income in America?
This is the bill that sends out $600 checks to people up to certain incomes in order to stimulate the economy. This is the bill where people who paid absolutely no income taxes whatsoever will get money from the government while those above certain incomes will not get one red cent. This is a typical Washington gimmick. It is an election year and politicians fell all over themselves to send money to people in hopes that it will curry favor at the polls in November. This package will do nothing for the economy.
The economy is not as bad as people are saying it is and many economists said that it would be improving by the time the checks even went out. The only thing that this bill did was get Democrats to admit that it is better if you are allowed to keep your own money and that they tax too much. They were conceding that taking your money amounts to forcing you to work for free for part of the year and that is true. While they were having this epiphany, they seemed to miss the fact that the money will not stimulate the economy. The market should be allowed to run the economy free of government interference. Government is the reason things get broken in the first place.
If they would learn to keep their work confined to running government and let businesses run themselves free of encumbering regulation things would be a hell of a lot better. Cheesy gimmicks like tax rebates will not help the economy any more than a gas tax holiday will (though they could repeal the gas tax all together and I would be happy).
Oh, and how did Obama see the rebate issue? He, like Hillary Clinton, did not vote on it. Both are listed as “not voting.” They were probably posturing to play gotcha. However, given Obama’s avoidance of controversial votes, he probably just avoided it to keep safe. That is not true leadership.
This guy is a lightweight. The funny thing is he keeps saying he is an outsider but he acts like the rest of them. He, like Clinton, will say anything to get elected. He also seems to ignore his own actions while criticizing others for doing the exact same thing.
Perhaps he should leave the glass house before throwing any more stones?
Sources:
My Way News
Tags: Bush, Clinton, gas tax, holiday, Iran, Israel, mcccain, Obama
Hillary: Begging Pathetic, Crying is Not?
Jan 16, 2008 Political
Hillary Clinton said that it was pathetic that President bush was in Saudi Arabia begging them to increase production in order to lower the price of oil. She stated that we need an energy independence policy right now with what she calls “green workers” to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
First things first. The world depends on fossil fuels. They are here for a reason and that reason is for us to refine them and use them. The fact that we have to get a lot of it from the Middle East is the fault of the Congress. If they would allow us to build more refineries and to drill on our own property for oil then perhaps we could reduce what we import.
It is also important to remember that many companies are working on other fuels but that it will take years of research before we have alternate sources. Ethanol is wasteful and uses more energy to produce than it provides. We have a long way to go but for the time being we must depend on oil. Nuclear energy is also an option but while Hillary was chiding the president for trying to get the price lowered she was bashing plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada. Nuclear power would go a long way to reducing our dependence.
I guess Hillary is having fun taking a shot at the president and saying he was begging. Let me ask you Hillary, what would you do, cry?
Source:
Breitbart
Tags: begging, Bush, crying, Hillary, oil prices
Don’t Let Facts Get in the Way Little Moonbat
Dec 18, 2007 Political
Meatbrain has not been to my site (well at least he has not commented here) in quite some time. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he is a left wing lunatic who finds fault with everything and his only method of debating is to demand proof of something and then call people a liar. I recently wrote a post about leaving Iran alone and Meathead took issue with it. He wrote a post at his site asking that I answer 3 questions. I am not going to answer them in his comments because no matter what I write he will call me a liar and then things go down hill from there. I will answer the 3 questions here so that they are put forth without all the drama associated with his site. He can either read it here or he can just sit in his mother’s basement eating Hot Pockets and drinking Mountain Dew. Those who do not know him (I do not link to his site) just think of the annoying gnat named Billy Joe and you will know Meathead. The only difference is that, at least, BJ made good arguments sometimes no matter how wrong he was. However, Meathead is just as annoying and degrading.
Q: Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?
A: I cannot answer the question as it is posed because it asks for the name of one person. The National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by a number of people and the press release on it was written by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Donald M. Kerr. The NIE is comprised of information provided by many intelligence analysts so naming one specific person is something I cannot do. The question also takes the original post out of context. I was writing about nuclear weapons and said “Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat.” The logical conclusion of the statement is …to make nuclear weapons (and I indicated they might later but not now). The report states that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 (emphasis should focus on the fact that they were prior to that despite their denials) and that they have not since then and there is no indication they will but if they do it will be well into the next decade (well into the next president’s watch).
UPDATE: I found this while searching for something else:
They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I have already shown that the report indicates they are no threat “to build nuclear weapons.” That is what the subject is about.
Q: In what previous NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report did “the intelligence community†state unequivocally that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?
A: I never stated that the intelligence community stated anything unequivocally. Check the post and see if the word is even in there. The exact quote is “Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes…” From the November 2007 NIE; “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” This is also is pointed out in the key differences between the previous NIE and this one in the summation. United for Peace also questions the differences by stating; ” The assessment does not explain — unless it is addressed in more than 130 pages still marked classified — how the May 2005 conclusion that Iran was still pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program went awry.” Therefore, the May 2005 NIE stated that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. Since the 2005 report has not been declassified I cannot cite it directly.
Q: How do you reconcile your claim that the intelligence community “missed 9/11 completely†with the fact that the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in USâ€, specifically noted that Osama bin Laden intended to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda operatives had traveled to or lived in the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously expressed a desire to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New Yorkâ€?
A: First of all, the PDB which you cite does indeed have that title and the information contained after the title is old news that had been passed from the previous president. It was the ongoing stuff and if you look it clearly indicates that the information is from as far back as 1997 and it was prepared because Bush had been briefed about the desire of OBL to attack inside the US. Bush wanted to know if we had any new information. This was the historical portion. What the briefing did not say is that bin Ladin was an imminent threat. Specifically, the PDB stated “The only recent information concerning possible current activities in the PDB related to two incidents. There is no information that either incident was related to the 9-11 attacks.” The only recent information was about two possible activities. The PDB does not give any information that indicates an attack was imminent. The entire PDB has not been released but the fact sheet on it summarizes the information. The report does not address all the items you outline in the question and many of them are suppositions since the entire report has not been released (the 1998 PDB to Clinton did. More on that later).
Now for my assertion that the intelligence community missed 9/11 completely. It has already been established that the PDB had no information regarding imminent attacks on 9/11 or any other date. The information citing intelligence failures comes from the 9/11 Commission Report. This report is the Bible all libtards hold up when they claim the President was totally at fault despite the fact the report lays blame in a number of directions and reaches back prior to the Bush administration and to the Congress:
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean says the report cites government wide “failure of policy, management, capability and, above all, failure of imagination,†but not government neglect. Fault is spread broadly: The intelligence community is harshly chastised but so is Congress for poor oversight of intelligence collection. Chemical and Engineering News
I realize that it is inherent in the design of moonbats to hate President Bush and blame everything on him. Meathead would have you believe that the intelligence community reported the late breaking news that bin Ladin hated us and was planning something and we are supposed to believe that the inaction of the president was the problem. If we were to take that at face value then we would have to blame President Clinton first. This is from his PDB in 1998:
The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 129 an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.
• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks†to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [—]2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources,but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.
• A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elements†in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [—]
3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.
• In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that “they†were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].â€
• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerce†from abroad and said his impending “marriage,†which would take place soon,would be a “surprise.â€â€œCommerce†and “marriage†often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—] [Pages 128 and 129 of the 911 Commission Report]
Notice how much this PDB from 1998 looks like the one Bush received in 2001? As I stated earlier, the Bush PDB was a rehash of old material. However, this begs the question, if moonbats hold Bush accountable for 9/11 based on the 2001 PDB why do they not hold Clinton accountable for not acting on the same (and in some cases more detailed) information? The Clinton 1998 PDB actually said that it was going to happen in a couple of weeks so it was certainly imminent at that time. I would not hold my breath waiting for Meathead or any other moonbat to lay the same blame on Clinton that they have been laying on Bush.
In any event, I answered the questions and they are well sourced. This will not stop Meathead from calling me a liar, demanding facts and generally smearing me in his comment section. This is all I am going to say with regard to addressing him though I welcome comments and will respond in kind. I answered the questions so that readers who followed his trackback (but don’t waste your time) would know that I did not ignore him and that I had the facts in the case, so to speak.
BTW: If you are unfortunate enough to end up at Meathead’s site, there is a commenter named Dan. He wrote an ignorant comment posing as me until Meathead changed it. Dan also accuses me of threatening to get my military buddies to track him down when I was on WAR. I never said that and he is lying about it. I never threatened this guy on the air and I do not recall saying I would get anyone to track him down. It would not be worth my time or anyone else’s. I will give credit to Meathead for writing that the comment did not come from me and asking Dan to comment under his own name.
Tags: 9/11 commission report, Bush, Clinton, Iran, nuclear weapons, pdb
They Call President Bush a Chimp…
Oct 9, 2007 Uncategorized
This new information will not bode well for those who thought they were insulting the President by referring to him as a chimp.
Chimps choose more rationally than humans
Well, they always have that BusHitler thing to fall back on…