Tuesday, July 31, 2007

What's going on at NASA?


For years, many of us admired NASA for its astronauts and incredible achievements. Unfortunately, NASA has been hit by some very bad news, from a woman chasing another woman to drinking on the job.

Of course, it represents a few people. Most NASA employees are first rate professionals. Sadly, they have given NASA a black eye!

Clean up the bad apples and reach for the stars!

He wants to be a progressive donkey now!



According to the latest Rasmussen, we can say that The American Public: Still Reaganesque:

"The survey revealed that 44 percent of the respondents rated the phrase "like Reagan" positively, followed by "progressive," favored by 35 percent, "conservative" (32 percent), "moderate" (29 percent) and at the bottom, "liberal" (20 percent)." (Washington Times)

Furthermore, the Dems don't like being called liberals anymore. Also, they are not saying that Reagan was a "moron", unpopular around the world and the worst president ever. They used to say that back in the 1980s but not anymore!

Great post from our friend Don Surber!


A few weeks ago, Don Surber was a guest on my show. He was great and very informative.

Today, Don hit one out of the park! See Dems worried the Surge may work!

Don was referring to a TV interview with Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina:

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us. We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Don makes the key point:

"Wait a second here: Who is the enemy to Clyburn? The Republican Party or al-Qaeda?"

The Democrats made a huge mistake in investing themselves in defeat. How does a political party win when their country loses? For example, can you imagine Republicans hoping for D-Day to fail to get at FDR in '44?

At some point, people have to think about their country. Unfortunately, too many Democrats were thinking about Moveon.org!

Thank you, PM Brown



Today, PM Brown met with Pres. Bush and I loved this:

"In this century, it has fallen to America to take center stage. And let me acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this struggle.

America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from Sept. 11, 2001, to this day that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructible; that while lives may be ended, the belief in liberty never dies; and that while hearts may be broken, the faith in a better future is unbreakable." (Partnership for the Ages)

PM Brown is exactly right. Since WW2, the US defended Western Europe from Soviet tanks, protected the world's sea lanes and kept the peace. (And we pay 22% of the UN budget!)

Like many other Brits, PM Brown grew up hearing how US GI's defended the UK from the Nazis many years ago. It's nice to hear PM Brown speak so well of the US!

PM Brown disappointed the international left by refusing to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. On the contrary, it appears that PM Brown is willing to stick it out!

PM Brown and Pres. Bush will have their differences. It is only natural for a US conservative Republican and a UK Labor PM to think differently. However, there are no differences on the big issues. (Brown Disappoints Critics of Iraq War)

Monday, July 30, 2007

Soccer gives the Iraqis something to smile about


During Saddam's reign, Iraq was a police state. There were mass graves, unspeakable repression and unbelievable brutality.

Since Saddam fell, Iraqis have voted three times and put up with daily terrorist attacks.

Yesterday, Iraqi had a chance to smile and cheer for something. The soccer team won and everyone was thrilled.

Iraq has so much potential. It has oil and a wonderful people. Let's hope that this is the beginning of something new.

Could it be that we are actually winning?


As usual, I checked the Internet early this morning for some overnight stories. I was very happy to read A War We Just Might Win By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK:

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Not bad. Could it be that we are winning and so many Democrats can't stand it?

In the end, O'Hallon and Pollack urge Congress to keep it going until 2008.

Later this morning, two of my favorite blogs added their commentary.

Power Line said this:

"My fear, though, is that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons. If so, they won't be swayed by this kind of report."


"The chief change comes at the top. General David Petraeus has transformed the mission, the strategy, and the tactics, which has transformed morale and set the US on track to building the Iraqi nation from the bottom up, instead of the top down. The men and women on the ground understand and appreciate the difference, and they have responded with enthusiasm."

Iraq is tough. However, most Americans understand that a premature withdrawal will be dangerous in the long run. (Hasty Iraq pullout seen as high risk)

At the end of the day, Democrats will try to destroy General Petraeus when he comes to Washington in mid-September. They will try to destroy his credibility. The insurgents will do their share by blowing up a lot of innocent people.

At the end of the day, Petraeus will win. Why? First, he is right and very professional. Second, Congress has such low approval ratings! (16% Say Congress Doing Good or Excellent Job)

Put me down as one of those who thinks that we've turned the corner in Iraq. It won't be easy sailing but we are navigating down the right path.

At the end of the day, good news is good for the US and Middle East stability. Unfortunately, good news is bad news for the party of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan!

Sunday, July 29, 2007

The majority that can't do anything!



Have you ever seen anything like this? The Democrats won the mid-term elections and declared a mandate to change everything.

Today, they are facing a huge backlash from the country.

Why? Because they have not done anything.

Back in '95, the new Republican majority passed a bunch of new laws and made a difference. The current Dems have not done that!

Divided government is actually good. It forces compromise. It usually results in better government.

In this case, divided government has not worked. My guess is that the Democrats have another 6 months to change the public perception. Otherwise, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be electoral liabilities to the party's nominee in 2008!

I guess that Alberto told the truth after all!


Of course, I want public officials to be truthful and honest. No one should lie to Congress. At the same time, Congressmen should not play partisan games by setting up perjury traps.

This whole Alberto Gonzalez show is shameful and demonstrates how pathetic the Democrats are:

""You've got an interesting situation when members of Congress, knowing that somebody is constrained by matters of classification, they can ask very broad questions ... they know the person sitting on the other side cannot answer thoroughly in an open session," White House spokesman Tony Snow said." (Democrats accused of sandbagging Gonzales)

The Democrats are playing games. AG Gonzalez is operating in the real world, i.e. terrorists are plotting to blow up one of our cities and kill thousands!

AG Gonzalez can not answer every question in a public session because some of this stuff is confidential. (What's Generally Referred to as "Truth")

My guess is that the Dems are overplaying their hand and coming across as a bunch of bullies who just want to get Alberto Gonzalez.

It won't work politically. Beyond that, this kind of "gotcha" politics is poisonous for the country.

Monday, July 23, 2007

A word about the young people who are wearing the uniform



In past blogs, I have written about the courage, commitment and sacrifice of US troops. For a long time, US troops have freed more people than any author, writer, poet, singer, "Hollywoodie", journalist, college professor or pacifist.

From France '44 to Iraq, US troops have liberated more people than any other military force in history.

Bottom line: US troops are liberators!

Let me recommend The 9/11 Generation by Dean Barnett:

"It is surely a measure of how far we've come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated. Just because Washington and Hollywood haven't noticed this generational shift doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. It has, and it's seismic."

I see this in my neighborhood. I know two young men who went into the military because they want to serve their country. They had other options but they chose to serve their country during war. Our own #3 son is considering a career in the Marines.

This is a great article. Let's salute the troops!


Sunday, July 22, 2007

Bottom line: We have not been attacked since 9-11


Go back to 9-11 evening. Go back to 9-12 morning. Didn't you think that we would be attacked again? I did. Most people did.

In fact, most of the country was horrified for the next bomb to go off.

Where are we? We have not been attacked since 9-11. 2,000 days without an attack!

Are we lucky? A little bit.

Are we stopping terrorists? Absolutely:

"In its "key judgments," the NIE observes that "greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S. Homeland."

It notes that the measures put into place since September 11, 2001, have "helped disrupt known plots"--last year's foiled attempt to blow up airliners over the North Atlantic being just one of them.

And it observes that terrorist groups "perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11."

If this is evidence of the Administration's alleged failures, we need more of them."
(
Terror Estimate)

Pres. Bush has done a great job in defending the US since 9-11.

Of course, no one can pitch a perfect game forever.

Sooner or later, we will be hit again. At the same time, the evidence shows that we have made life a lot more difficult for terrorists.

Sadly, the latest NIE report turned into another opportunity for The New York Times and opportunistic Dems to take cheap shots. The Dems don't have the courage to cut the funding but they can take lots of cheap shots!

We have not been attacked and that's a pretty good bottom line!

Friday, July 20, 2007

The investors love Bush!


Yesterday, the stock market hit 14,000! It is a new record high! Obviously, someone likes what Bush is doing:

"In just the past year alone, the Dow has gained a remarkable 30 percent. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia are up about 30 percent, Japan 23 percent, and emerging markets more than 60 percent. Clearly, the world is voting -- with real money -- for the American system of free-market capitalism. And it's my strong suspicion that the majority of the global investing community supports the Iraq War and a steadfast U.S. commitment to stop terrorism. They seem to know that if the United States doesn't do it, no one else will." (A Stock Market Vote of Confidence for BushBy Lawrence Kudlow)

So cheer up. The economy is doing well.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Can the Dems afford victory in Iraq?


Normally (like 99.9999% of the time), I'm sleeping around 3am. However, I got home late Tuesday night and found myself sitting in front of the TV. Fortunately, I got to watch a bit of the Senate debate. No one does it better than John McCain. No one explains the war better than Senator McCain:

"No one can be certain whether this new strategy which remains in the early stages can bring about greater stability.

We can be sure, should the United States seek to legislate an end to the strategy, as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain. Mr. President, I read this -- earlier this resolution.

This rusting incredibly says that we can only -- the mission is restricted to only fighting Al-Qaeda.

I guess that Al-Qaeda will have to wear T-shirts that says that they are Al-Qaeda, and I guess our troops are expected, if someone's planting an IED, "Excuse me, sir, are you Al-Qaeda, or are you a Shi'ite? If you're Shi'ite, go ahead and plant it." (McCain 2008 )

Great stuff.

The overnight speeches did not matter. The Democrats could not get the 60 votes for cloture. Nevertheless, Rick Moran is right that it was A SURREAL DEBATE:

"Remember, the Democrats do not have a plan, do not have a clue on what to do next in Iraq. The “timetable” is a smokescreen. They no more expect Bush to meet that timetable than they do pigs to fly. It is political gamesmanship, nothing more."

That's right. This is about giving the anti-war base something to chew on. They don't have the courage to step up and cut the funding.

IBD is right:

"Instead of all-night pajama parties and obtuse legislative ploys, why can't Democrats be honest and just shut off war funding?

Answer: They know it would betray our troops and turn Iraq into a slaughterhouse." (Can't Let Bush Win)

That's right! The Dems are just playing games. It's a shame that they are playing games with something as serious as the national security of the US.

We are witnessing a rather amazing scene. On one side, Pres. Bush is committed to victory. On the other side, many Democrats have invested themselves in defeat.

What if Bush is right? What if we stabilize Iraq and continue to destroy Al Qaeda?

How did Democrats put themselves in a corner where victory is a loss for them?

How did the party of FDR, Truman, LBJ, JFK, Humphrey and Joe Lieberman allow that to happen? I don't know. However, I do know that a successful conclusion to the Iraq mission spells trouble for the Dems!

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

We captured another Al Qaeda leader in Iraq but Al Qaeda is not in Iraq!



Was Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded? I'll let historians answer that one. My guess is that Al Qaeda and Saddam had a relationship. Stephen Hayes has written about this! Check out (Their Man in Baghdad) and (Camp Saddam) about terrorists operating in Iraq. For more, see (Saddam's Terror Training Camps)

Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. After all, we keep killing and capturing their leaders: Military says top al-Qaida in Iraq figure captured!

Again, the Dems are talking about the civil war in Iraq. I agree that there is sectarian violence. At the same time, there is a lot of Al Qaeda doing their best to create chaos. They hate democracy and love bombs! Al Qaeda has zero to offer so they bomb innocent civilians daily!

Monday, July 16, 2007

Hillary Clinton's "double talk" on Iraq




Let me say it again. Please nominate Hillary Clinton. Please nominate Hillary Clinton.

Once again, we see an example of Hillary Clinton's general election problems. By next summer, most antiwar Democrats will be so disappointed with Hillary Clinton that Ralph Nader will jump in the race.

Listen to Hillary Clinton in Iowa:

"Here's what she wanted voters to take away from the
speech, judging by the top of the campaign's press release about it:

"Today in
Iowa, Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately."

Most of the address indeed focused on her plan to withdraw combat troops, which she said she would accompany with increased aid and diplomacy. She peppered the speech with criticism of Bush's war leadership and with phrases such as "as we are leaving Iraq." But toward the end, Clinton noted that it would be "a great worry for our country" if Iraq "becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists, as it appears it already is."

So she would "order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region." U.S. troops would also train and equip Iraqi forces "to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent we believe such training is actually working."

And she might deploy other forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, she said, "to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that has developed there." (What Clinton (Almost) Doesn't Say By Fred Hiatt)

What's going on? Hillary Clinton is telling primary voters what they want to hear but keeping her options open for the general election.

Will this double talk work? I don't think so. She is going to be running against Guiliani, Thompson, Romney or McCain.

Trust me. Republicans are going to have a field day showing videos of Hillary Clinton's multiple Iraq positions.

The news media will give Hillary Clinton every advantage to win. However, the debates will kill her because she won't be able to dance around these issues anymore.

Beyond politics, let me ask you this. How can anyone vote for a politician who will tell what you want to hear knowing that she is going to do something different?

Welcome to Clintonland, the land of double talk and last minute pardons!

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR BLOG AND RADIO SHOW

FOLLOW MY BLOG

LISTEN TO OUR RECENT SHOWS

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email

MY TWITTER

FACEBOOK

Search This Blog