Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Every now and then one can recognize the use of artistic license by the author of a news report. Such is the case with at least part of the report below. But it fits nicely into the argument on this blog that President Obama is not a WYSIWYG politician. As evidenced by the phenomenon known as Obamania or some similar term there is a tendency in this nation to accept all of Mr Obama’s actions as right, above reproach, divine or in some way superhuman as the saving grace to whisk away all that ails the world.

President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.

The rhetoric of playing by the rules, adhering to our values and other platitudes disguise the nature of the Obama philosophy. Kindly remember that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama spent much of his youth with Frank Marshall Davis. Barack Obama and his Marxist and socialist influences combined with Republican turned lefty Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rest of the clan that followed her to the Clinton Obama Administration are proving by their actions what most of us new before the election. An Obama Presidency will lead this country toward socialism and the weak-kneed appeasement policies reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. Maybe that is why Obama and ACORN focused on the youth vote in America. Being mostly oblivious to history they probably have no clue who Mr Chamberlain was and the significance of a reference to him on this topic.

Change you can believe in is correct. You can believe the change will not be a good thing. And you might find it interesting in the piece below that while the Bush Administration receives an inordinate amount of criticism on this topic Mr Obama ‘would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.’ Making good on a campaign promise is the excuse now and the harsh criticism does not need to be repeated as the gesture says it all. Make yourself look good to your supporters who have lost some confidence while quietly bashing your predecessor and setting up an appeasement policy with rhetoric.

The community organizer strikes again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video (Michelle Malkin) 

President Obama’s executive orders Thursday Jan 22nd, closing the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, fulfill a campaign promise and impose major policy changes designed, in part, to improve America’s image in the world.

It was a dramatic moment at the White House on Thursday morning. As cameras clicked in front of him, President Obama said he was ordering all U.S. government agencies to abide by the restrictive interrogation rules published by the U.S. Army two years ago, and that he was ordering the closure of any prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and said “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”

The president also ordered an inspection of the Guantanamo facility to ensure it complies with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws. He also canceled a 2007 order by former-President Bush that opened the door to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and told all U.S. government agencies to ignore Bush administration decisions about what is allowed and what is not.

But President Obama did say he would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.

The president also suspended the military trials at Guantanamo, which human rights activists and many legal experts have branded as unfair.

The closing of the detention center and the end of those trials have long been sought by activists and many foreign governments. Some detainees were held in harsh conditions in the years immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Although conditions have improved and the government says harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, Guantanamo has become a symbol of excess in the war on terrorism.

At Human Rights Watch in Washington, attorney Jennifer Daskal welcomed President Obama’s moves. “With the stroke of a pen, the new Barack Obama administration has put the United States back on a humane and rule-of-law-respecting course, and rejected the abusive practices of the last 7 1/2 years. These orders will go an enormous way toward restoring America’s image all around the world,” he said.

President Obama said that was part of what he wanted to do. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

President Obama started a process on Thursday that his predecessor, George W. Bush, also said he wanted to do but never did.

The former president and his spokesmen cited the difficulties of placing detainees in other countries and concerns about what to do with detainees who the government says are too dangerous to release, but cannot be put on trial because the evidence against them is secret or tainted by alleged torture. They also said 61 of the approximately 500 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism.

At a news conference shortly after the executive orders were signed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush cabinet member asked to stay in his job — said those difficult issues have not gone away.

GATES: “These are just issues that we will have to work through with the new administration. And some of the legal issues, which are really outside our purview, are the things that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel and so on will be working on.”
PESSIN: “But is there some option out there that you identified before, but was rejected by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to those that you can’t release and can’t put on trial?”
GATES: “I don’t think so.”

Secretary Gates indicated he does not know exactly how the issues will be settled, but he noted that since the November presidential election, a few countries have expressed interest in taking some of the detainees from Guantanamo — reversing their previous refusals.

The Secretary, who is also a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said he is not concerned about the new restrictions on interrogators. He indicated that whatever advantage the harsh techniques might provide is no longer needed.

“We know a lot more about al-Qaida now than we did in the early years of the administration, the early years after September 11, 2001. And personally, I believe that the need for measures that go outside the Army Field Manual is dramatically less than it was several years ago,” he said.

Secretary Gates is a member of all three task forces President Obama formed on Thursday to decide how to close the Guantanamo detention center, what to do with its detainees and how to handle detainees and interrogations in the future. President Obama wants answers from his new task forces within six months.

The president’s orders do not pre-judge the issues, but they do call on the officials involved to consider transferring some Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons and trying them in regular civilian U.S. courts. Some of the detainees have been held for more than seven years without charges or trials.

Has President Barack Obama provided any clues on how he plans to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? After taking the oath of office as cited below….

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

…President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address. As the transcript provides in the second paragraph of his speech President Obama made reference to this. ‘At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.’ There are two troubling items here. Is there a difference between ‘we the people’ and the President of the United States? And ‘true to our founding documents’ could be viewed as a little vague. Since he is now in the highest office in the nation it is difficult to determine if he is drawing a distinction between the two especially now that he is in ‘high office’.

If you object to the preceding paragraph consider the following:

There are other references out there on President Obama’s view of the founding documents. Use a search engine with the words ‘obama’ and ‘constitution’. For example, he in populating the US Supreme Court and perhaps other federal courts Mr Obama has said this. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the “truly difficult” cases requires resort to “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In short, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.

Here’s a little more from the piece at The Weekly Standard.

Indeed, in setting forth the sort of judges he would appoint, Obama has explicitly declared: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics.

Here’s a teaser from a Powerline piece that you may be interested in reading. Yesterday the Obama campaign called on University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein to tamp down the furor over Obama’s advocacy of “redistributive change” and overcoming of the Constitution’s “negative rights” in his 2001 radio interview. Politico’s Ben Smith reliably channelled Professor Sunstein’s spinning on behalf of Obama.

Another statement holds the phrase, ‘we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.’ Says who? Hope is for losers. The minute you start a sentence with ‘I hope’ you end the pursuit of the ends you seek by abandoning self-determination and personal responsibility. You then expect someone or something else to provide the solution on your behalf. Even the lottery has better odds of success. Hope is not the antidote for fear. Fear is a natural response to a threat. Hope is not part of the solution but a surrender to the fear.

‘Unity of purpose over conflict and discord’ is choice rhetoric. It is merely an extension of the hope and fear sentiment designed by the far left to convince the weak to succumb to the nanny state philosophy that government is the answer to all your problems. It is further evidence that an Obama Administration will choose appeasement and surrender over standing up and defending freedom against those who wish our nation harm.

The next two paragraphs on ’setting aside childish things’ and ‘reaffirmation’ is merely a shot at his opposition party as well as the previous administration. It is full of contradictions in how we must change and yet continue as we are. It exposes the desire to change America and redefine that change as something we have lost which is untrue. The only time we risk losing what is and has been America is when we fail to oppose radical notions that would lead to and end of this republic as we know it.

The next contradiction in this speech begins ‘this is the journey we continue today.’ On the one hand President Obama states we are just as good and strong as we always were and on the other hand we must change. Perhaps his call to stop putting off unpleasant decisions refers to his pursuit of socialism. If you disagree with this appraisal please explain how a never ending expansion of government and a continuation of government control of private enterprise is anything other than a move to socialism? The subsequent paragraph largely details Obama’s plan for such policies.

The paragraph starting with ‘nor is the question before us’ specifically addresses President Obama’s desire to redistribute wealth disguised as an endorsement of free markets. He accepts the fact that free markets work but without government intervention they do not share the wealth equally or for the common good. Yes, go ahead and be successful in free markets but be ready to share all you have with everyone else whether they earn it or not.

Much of the remainder of the speech beyond this point continues to stress Obama’s belief that his ideas are what WAS good about America and uses general rhetorical references to history as his proof that what he believes is what we once were. These parts of the speech reinforce his intention to appease the very people who threaten this nation. They are crafted to send a message that this new leader will bend to the threat. Every time this nation has withdrawn and given confidence to those who believe we are too timid to defend ourselves we have been attacked. A return to such policies will only invite more of the same. For Mr Obama to attempt to convince the public that weak-kneed concessions and appeasement of global threats is the best defense underscores his refusal to understand history or his intent to mislead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.” (Michelle Malkin) 

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Florida’s 24th district featured a decisive win for Democrat Suzanne Kosmas over three term Republican incumbent Tom Feeney. Kosmas is cited as having a real estate business and serving eight years in the Florida legislature. She will represent four Florida counties and while some refer to her as a moderate and having a history of working with Republicans and opposing tax cuts in Florida there are also hints of typical liberal agendas. At the top is her redeployment stance on Iraq, supporting massive infrastructure spending as well as propping up the Kennedy Space Center in her state, universal health care and alternative energy. If she believes in balanced budgets, pay as you go, ‘accountability’ and tax cuts how does that live with the spending she supports?

No need to scream about the lack of performance by Congress or the White House or either major political party on matters related to money. Managing budgets, appropriations and trying to empty the Treasury includes all of the above as co-conspirators. Only time will tell if Kosmas is just another liberal and the jury will probably be out for some time as she is another freshman member of the US House.

While this blog is something of a fan of NASA and its long history the agency is not without serious flaws. The relatively small portion of the federal budget used by NASA (16 billion a few years back) may be made leaner if the space agency ever decides to pursue some of the technologies advanced by the private sector in recent years. Kosmas states in her brief announcement and introduction on The Hill’s Congress blog that she views NASA, or more precisely, the Kennedy Space Center as ‘one of the most significant issues’ in her district. That is followed by this statement. ‘We will keep people working there and flying into space.’ It would seem reasonable to conclude NASA’s future and the employment prospects of those at the Kennedy Space Center will be determined by more than a statement by a freshman member of the House.

In the last paragraph of her blog post Kosmas indicates her constituents want bipartisan cooperation in Washington and adds her party leadership says they intend to do just that. Oh, the optimism and hopeful chants expressed by newly elected politicians. Armed with nothing more than a new job in Washington with the small probability that she will be able to accomplish anything significant during her first term or two Kosmas mirrors most of what the other newbies are saying. Would it be premature to conclude that the freshman described in these few posts as well as all the ones before them contribute to Washington politics as usual as their entry to national politics is taken from the same tired old script and political playbook used by those in Congress and elsewhere for years?

Veteran lawmakers typically gloat after their efforts defeat a competing effort from the opposition party. Likewise they blame the opposition party when things do not go well which is often. Veteran politicians and newbies use approved rhetoric when speaking publicly in an attempt to snow the voter. When things get really bad they all talk about the word ‘bipartisan’. It is used to equally distribute blame when they are all guilty and agree to collective job saving, their own. It is also used in an attempt to make the opposition party look bad when nothing is being done typically in regard to legislation. So the newbies mentioned here as well as the veteran lawmakers are all relying heavily on their political playbooks which supports the notion that, yes, newbies are complicit in Washington politics as usual.

Regarding Suzanne Kosmas specifically, there is a chance with what has been said about her and some of her previous state legislative performance something positive may occur. But those hopes may be dashed by her status as freshman and how her party will manipulate that fact to their advantage. Most likely will be the pressure to ‘do as we say’ or no money for you at re-election time.

We may never hear about her again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This third installment of The Downside of Elections as Term Limits features an interesting politician. For he was in politics as a staffer at the state level in Ohio. He is a veteran of the Air Force and tours in Iraq, etc., and advocates for veterans. He was a member of the state legislature in Ohio and has pursued his education to the level of master’s degree. Another US Congressional freshman with a substantial resume’ who is no stranger to politics. That may be further qualified by his announcement on The Hill dot com Congress blog. That is where this series of post’s started and continues to this third post. What is similar and what is contrast within John Boccieri’s blog post compared to the first two freshman featured here?

The classic excuse of representing one’s home constituents as a politician prepares to lobby for funds on his state’s behalf is presented in Boccieri’s opening at the Congress Blog. While separating Ohio from the remainder of the country in terms of economic strife he ignores state’s like Michigan who are in similar straits. Later in the second of two paragraphs he hints at favoring the auto industry bailout while explaining 25% of Ohio’s economy rises of falls with the Big Three. Maybe there should be some mention of why Ohio puts that many eggs in one basket? There are other examples where for instance agriculture dominates the economic landscape. And we all know how much of that industry was manipulated by others. From government subsidies tempting family farmers to abandon good principles in exchange for a sure thing by growing this or more frequently not growing that to the corporate heavyweights buying up or putting out of business those family farms which had been the core of American culture and economics. With all the talk of diversity these days there is a definite lack of it in American business demonstrated by forestry in the northwest, agriculture in the ‘heartland’, commercial fishing in the coastal areas and the list goes on.

While Boccieri is a veteran and advocates for veterans he seems to favor withdrawal from Iraq, etc. It is difficult to tell by his words but it may leave you with the impression his ‘bring them home with honor’ mirrors those liberals demanding surrender or appeasement before the troop surge but softening their tone after victory became the likely outcome. More pandering may be present in his use of hot button issues like health care and all those items focused on Ohio. Sure, all politicians do it. Lobby for their states through pork and earmarks and other political prizes. Does this freshman to the US Congress possess those characteristics attributed to long term lawmakers by virtue of his state experience? How else can one interpret his blog announcement?

There are videos at youtube where you can simply search by this freshman’s name to view them. None reviewed here gave a good glimpse into this politician’s motives or agenda. His blog post of two paragraphs seemed to do it better. That is why there are none published here as with the two former freshman featured.

Getting People Back To Work And Bringing Our Troops Homes (Congressman-elect John Boccieri)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is not uncommon to find an analysis of the foreign policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. One such analysis below from down under agrees with the view from this blog and is used here to emphasize that point. Senator John McCain is in a much better position to deal with Iran than Barack Obama. Among all the issues that face the US now and will face the next President very soon, Iran and their pursuit of nuclear capabilities as well as the threats against Israel, the rest of the Middle East and the world in general ranks as critiical. So think about the other events related to Iran presented below and their historical implications.

Iran test candidates

In the end the result was much closer than anticipated, with most political pundits calling it tie. But on the crucial issue of Iran, Senator McCain struck a more convincing tone, giving him the edge on this most pressing of security issues. What to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program will be one of the most difficult challenges to face the next occupant of the White House. A nuclear-armed Iran would spark an atomic arms race in the Middle East, threaten the world’s oil supplies and embolden Iran-sponsored extremist groups such as Hezbollah.

Senator Obama’s policy on Iran has been marked by missteps, most notably his offer to negotiate directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In Saturday’s debate he backtracked on this position, saying he was no longer so sure. But he stuck to his belief that direct diplomacy would give the US more credibility to press for tougher sanctions. Senator McCain was more forthright, ruling out talks with Mr Ahmadinejad and reiterating his opposition to giving ground in any way that might legitimise the Iranian leader’s illegal behaviour.

At first glance, the title from an article in the Tehran Times suggested someone had lost their mind or this was simply propaganda from Iran.

Rabbis hail Ahmadinejad’s NY visit

A group of American rabbis welcome Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York in a move aimed at countering an anti-Iran protest.

Iran promotes peace and respects Judaism, spokesman of Neturei Karta International (Jews United Against Zionism) Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss said in a statement issued on the eve of President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York.

This is while a pro-Israeli group called the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations has made efforts to organize a rally in front of the UN headquarters on Sunday to protest President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s arrival in the U.S..

Right out of the blocks the claim that Iran ‘promotes peace and respects Judaism’ sends the BS meter off the charts. How is advocating the destruction of Israel promoting peace and respecting Judaism? The additional strange suggestion from the piece indicating Rabbis on both sides of the Iranian controversy. The report offered below also presents a combination of expected and unexpected responses to Iran.

A coalition of U.S. religious groups exchanged views with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a New York hotel.

The dialogue Thursday, sponsored by Mennonite, Quaker and other religious groups that press for world peace, had been sharply criticized by Jewish groups for allegedly legitimating the Iranian president’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and his oppression of religious minorities in Iran.

Expected: Jewish groups criticizing others for meeting with the Iranian President. Unexpected: other religious groups meeting with the Iranian President. While one might not reasonably expect everyone to hold the same opinion on Iran on every issue, recognizing Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel and therefore condemning the Iranian Preisdent and refusing to meet with him should be SOP for religious groups as well as political leaders. Since Ahmadinejad has been compared to Hitler it is not a stretch to view some recent events as similar to the coddling manner by which many also treated Hitler during his rise to power in Germany. And we all know what happened then.

And then a surprise from the WSJ that would seem more appropriately located in the confines of the NYT based on past history. A reporter’s account of an invite and dinner with Ahmadinejad extended to those of Iranian heritage.

Inside Iran, sentiments are divided over him. The ultra conservatives praise his populist demeanor while others criticize him for his government’s economic policies that have contributed to the rise of unemployment and a 25% inflation rate, despite a country swimming in cash from soaring oil prices.

At the dinner party in New York, criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to have been brushed aside and replaced with fervent nationalistic pride. Both the host and the attendees appeared to cling to the one strong, if only, tie: being Iranian.

And the same mixed reactions are of course not dead at the United Nations either.

Sound familiar? First there is tough talk from those in the UN and the IAEA that Iran is dangerous and pursuing nukes (or WMD) and that they are ignoring the United Nations and members that are demanding they cease and desist.

UN Nuclear Agency Accuses Iran of Blocking Investigation

September 15, 2008
The United Nations nuclear agency is accusing Iran of blocking a U.N. investigation into allegations that Tehran tried to make nuclear weapons.

The UN then speaks of enforcing sanctions and possibly announcing more to which Ahmadinejad promptly flips them off.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Dismisses Sanction Talk as Weak

September 18, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed talk of new sanctions over Iran’s disputed nuclear work as a sign of weakness by those making the threat.

And about a week later the Iranian President struts his stuff at the UN and essentially tells them to go pound sand

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Denounces ‘Bullying Powers’ in UN Address

Sept 26, 2008
The Iranian leader sounded a defiant tone at the United Nations, where preliminary consultations have been held on a possible fourth sanctions resolutions against Tehran in the Security Council because of its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Sounds like the UN responded with tougher sanctions after being bad mouthed by Iran.

Major Powers Agree on New UN Resolution on Iran

Sept 26, 2008
Putting aside differences over Georgia, the United States and Russia joined other major powers Friday in endorsing a new draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Iran to comply with international demands to halt its uranium enrichment program. The draft, expected to be approved by the full council next week, reaffirms existing U.N. sanctions against Iran but contains no new ones.

While the previous report indicates there were no new sanctions, the title and story below drive home the point.

Iran Avoids New Sanctions in Security Council Vote

By Margaret Besheer
27 September 2008

The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution ordering Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program — but the council did not impose any new sanctions.

And on top of all that comes a recent addition to the shameful actions of some Iranian citizens.

Young Iranians Release Book Caricaturing The Holocaust

Sunday, September 28, 2008

TEHRAN, Sept. 27 — Iranian students have released a book containing cartoons of the Holocaust, including some depicting hospitalized Jews on respiratory machines attached to canisters of Zyklon B, the gas used to exterminate Jews during World War II.

The students, members of a state militia, unveiled “Holocaust” in Tehran’s Palestine Square on Friday in the presence of Education Minister Ali Reza Ali-Ahmadi, during annual demonstrations calling for the retreat of “Zionists” from “occupied Palestine.”

Below is an excerpt of an account of the Iranian President’s stand on Israel.

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

“Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off “without the existence of the Zionist regime.”

Israel “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,” he said.

There are enough examples in this post to reveal nearly every nation, organization or group is complicit in allowing the insanity that is Ahmadinejad to persist. Many are quick to condemn his behavior but few, especially the United Nations, are prepared to support that condemnation with action. This includes other Arab states who publicly support peace in the Middle East but whose actions offer little evidence that this is anything more than posturing.

It has been said that during the first Presidential debate John McCain was the only adult in the room. That would be a plus since Ahamdinejad contends since the US has nukes Iran should be able to also. An adult would handle that like any other lame argument from an unruly child and not allow the stupidity to continue. Whereas Barack Obama would simply say ‘no’ without follow up action like the fine parents who let their children raise hell in public to the disdain of others wishing the offending parent(s) knew how to raise children.

But of course that is an absurd analogy on the state of affairs with Iran equal to the inept response of world leaders to the very real threat of the stated goals of Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is beginning to show that President Bush is aware his tenure is almost over and little time is left to pursue remaining tasks. Some very critical objectives were successfully accomplished during his watch but not without a series of flawed actions or policies. It is likely historians years from now will be more sympathetic in analyzing his Presidency than current observers.

As an example the economy is the number one issue entering the November elections. When has it not been in a Presidential election. And it is unfair to characterize the economic climate a recession as it does not pass the test of two consecutive quarters of decline in the GDP. For all the noise made about decisions leading up to the war in Iraq including prosecution of the war pre-troop surge, the antiwar left has been relatively quiet compared to this time last year. There were plenty of mistakes for sure, but the clamor over them has ignored the achievements of the Bush Administration. Not the least of which was to neutralize a Democratic Congress and avoid a larger mess if the liberals had there way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush Expected to Maintain US Troop Level in Iraq through 2008

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
Pessin report - Download (MP3)
Pessin report - Listen (MP3)

The White House says next week President Bush will announce his plans for U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the rest of his time in office, an announcement that will also affect how many additional troops he can send to Afghanistan. Officials say senior military officers have recommended no further Iraq withdrawals this year, and only a small one early next year, which could make it difficult for commanders to address the increased attacks by insurgents in Afghanistan. VOA’s Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

President George W. Bush

President Bush’s long-awaited announcement is expected next Monday or Tuesday, before Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the top U.S. military officer Admiral Mike Mullen testify before a congressional committee on Wednesday. Those men gave their recommendations to the president two days ago, and officials say they included the views of the top coalition commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. They also included the views of the heads of the U.S. military services, who have been particularly concerned about the stress on the force caused by multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

On condition of anonymity, officials have told news reporters the recommendation is for no further reduction in the 140,000-strong U.S. contingent in Iraq this year, and for a small reduction of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops in January, just before President Bush leaves office.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino hinted at the go-slow approach on Friday, saying the president does not want to do anything that could reverse the security gains made in Iraq during the past year.

“The question in the president’s mind has been, ‘How do we make sure that we cement those gains and not jeopardize those gains?’ and be able to continue the process of ‘Return on Success.’ He’s obviously talking to his national security team and he’ll be consulting with members of congress before we move forward,” she said.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser (file photo)

American officials have long said they would like to increase the U.S. and international troop presence in Afghanistan, but that the United States does not have many troops to send as long as its commitment in Iraq remains high. So President Bush’s expected announcement may not be good news for the U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who spoke to reporters at the Pentagon Friday via satellite.

“I’m going to ask for more troops,” said General Schloesser. “I think it’s pretty commonly known that I already have. And I’m optimistic that we’ll potentially see them in the coming months.”

Officials have said commanders in Afghanistan want 10,000 more troops, but General Schloesser says he may only get a couple of thousand, at least in his area. But the general says it is not an emergency, in spite of the increase of insurgent attacks. He says allied forces are not losing in eastern Afghanistan, but they are not winning as quickly as he would like.

“It’s a slow win,” he said. “I want to make it into a solid, strong win. It’s going to take time no matter what. But I’d like to do it in a more robust way.”

U.S. officials have called the Afghanistan war an “economy of force” operation, because not enough troops have been available to send. General Schloesser says that needs to change.

The general says U.S., NATO and Afghan forces face a complex group of between seven and 11,000 insurgents, who, he says, have increased their attacks in his sector by 20 to 30 percent this year and are trying to develop what he called “spectacular” attacks. He plans a winter offensive to try to prevent the insurgents from bringing in supplies to prepare for next spring’s fighting season, and also an increase in development assistance for local Afghan communities.

No matter how many times an American icon or in this case, KFC, appears on the stage in another country the whole thing seems awkward at best. From Disney Europe to McDonald’s in Russia and all the other similar arrangements it just looks odd. The press is full of stories that display the continuous array of stories related to affairs of state among the countries of the world and most of them littered with conflict, tension, accusations being lodged and the central theme of placing blame on who is not doing their part to promote or enable peace on the planet.

Is anyone raising an issue with American fast food being introduced to nations around the globe? Gee, Wally, maybe they should remove all the standard diplomatic channels like foreign affairs ministries, departments of state and the United Nations and simply pass the burgers and fries, or in this case fried chicken and sign the peace agreements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Fast Food To Go in AfghanistanBy Rahimgul Sarawan
Kabul
Kabul Fried Chicken / Broadband - Download (WM)
Kabul Fried Chicken / Broadband - Watch (WM)

Owner Mirwais Abdurrahimzai says his KFC restaurant is licensed by the Afghan government and has two locations in Kabul. His restaurants serve 11 different kabobs, sixteen kinds of pizza, burgers and fried chicken.

The American fast food chain KFC is famous around the world for its fried chicken. KFC stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken and founded by Harlan David Sanders, better know to patrons as Colonel Sanders.

In Kabul, Afghanistan, another KFC restaurant is doing a brisk business. But this KFC is short for Kabul Fried Chicken and serves kabobs and pizza alongside the chicken.

Rahimgul Sarawan reports from Kabul that while this KFC was inspired by Colonel Sanders, that is where the association ends. Brian Allen narrates.

A classic case of all parties involved pitching their version of the story. Out of all this what seems accurate or believable? The woman arrested is from Pakistan. She was educated at MIT and Brandeis as a neuroscientist and has a son. She and her son are accused of plotting a terrorist attack. She and/or her son possessed enough evidence on them to convince a US Court to go ahead with the case.

After disappearing the woman surfaced in Pakistan and was arrested. While being held in Pakistan one person arriving at her location left an M14 ‘on the floor’ and she retrieved the weapon and from behind curtains opened fire. She missed but a soldier returned fire hitting her in the abdomen. After surgery, etc., she was brought to the US, is in jail and refusing to appear in Court. Her defense team claims it is because of physical and mental difficulties.

The two odd things noticed while reviewing this story were an apparent typo in a WaPo account that described the soldier’s weapon as an M-4 assumed to be an M-14. To Siddiqui’s attorney: how believable was it that a soldier left a weapon on the floor and that a mere 90 pound woman could pick it up? The sole commentary from this blog on the story reads like this, ‘Hey defense attorney lady, any chance you had to convince me of your client’s innocence disappeared with your ridiculous comments in the press just paraphrased here’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Below, Al Jazeera chimes in with this video……..

and here is a report on the story from Voice of America

Wisniewski report - Download (MP3)
Wisniewski report - Listen (MP3)

A Pakistani woman who is charged with trying to murder U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan refused to appear for her arraignment in New York City Thursday. Defense lawyers say Aafia Siddiqui is unable or unwilling to submit to a required strip-search due to wounds she suffered when she was arrested nearly two months ago and that she urgently needs medical and psychological care. VOA’s Walter Wisniewski has more.

Aafia Siddiqui

Aafia Siddiqui was absent when prosecutors and defense attorneys gathered in federal court on Thursday. The defense team says the 36-year-old, U.S.-educated scientist is in extremely poor mental and physical health. The lawyers want the court to transfer her from a federal detention center to a hospital, to determine whether she is able to stand trial.

“I believe that she has severe emotional, psychological and medical issues, [and] that human rights require that she be taken out of the Bureau of Prisons and transferred to Bellevue [Hospital], so that she can be evaluated,” said Elizabeth Fink, Siddiqui’s lead defense attorney.

Siddiqui came to the United States as a teenager. She trained as a neuroscientist at two prestigious American universities, married and had three children, then returned to Pakistan in 2002. A year later, she dropped out of sight and was not heard from again until her arrest in mid-July in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province.

The police who arrested Siddiqui called in U.S. soldiers and FBI agents to interrogate the woman the following day. They say their prisoner somehow took a rifle from one of the Americans and opened fire. She missed, but one of the soldiers shot Siddiqui in the abdomen.

After emergency surgery, she was held in Afghanistan for several weeks, then returned to the U.S. and charged with attempted murder and other offenses. Her indictment, which was unsealed earlier this week, links her to unspecified terrorist groups and that, through handwritten notes and computer files, she discussed the feasibility of attacks on U.S. targets — including New York’s landmark Empire State Building.

No one will speak on the record, but the implication is that Siddiqui was a suicide-bomber-in-training, and that she was under the control of terrorists during the nearly five years in which she dropped out of sight.

Defense attorney Elizabeth Fink

Siddiqui’s lawyers tell a markedly different story. They suggest that Siddiqui originally was detained by what attorney Elizabeth Fink calls “the American dark side”. The defense lawyer scoffs at the indictment’s citation of the suspicious documents, and notes that no charges of terrorist activity have been brought against her client. “She’s not being charged with possessing any of those documents. Why was that put there? It was put there so that everybody can think that she’s ‘al-Qaida mom.’”

Although Fink and her colleagues have not seen Siddiqui since August 11, they say she has been left “incredibly damaged” by the events of the past two months. They are seeking psychological tests to determine whether Siddiqui is competent to stand trial. They say the strip-search required at the detention center where Siddiqui is being held is excruciatingly painful because of the severity of her wounds.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman ordered prosecutors and defense lawyers to try to agree on arrangements for Siddiqui to appear in court in Manhattan, possibly by a videolink from her cell in Brooklyn. Both sides are due to appear in court again on September 22.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Dollar Traveler, Shadowscope, , The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady’s World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

Peaceful demonstration is fine. But then there were, as usual, those who ‘created disturbances’ or ‘confronted police’ or ‘vandalized property’. Stepping over the peaceful demonstration line is always the part where antiwar fanatics fail to accomplish anything. Once you step over the line of what is legal your credibility disappears and any sympathy or support you sought evaporates also.

And antiwar protesters almost never fail to miss the point. Slogans like ’support the troops, end the war’ should be rephrased to ’support the troops, win the war.’ And the vet who is quoted in the report presents a statement or at least part of a statement that suggests he did not read or does not understand the agreement he entered into with the military. It appears he completed a tour then was on leave and when ordered to return to duty, refused and was discharged. In years past the penalty for that may have been more severe than simply discharge. The obvious question beyond knowing what you’re signing up for is how can the military be effective if anyone serving can decide for themselves is they will obey orders. And if you choose to disobey orders you should be prepared to accept the consequences. What does Gilligan’s explained actions say to others who followed orders or made the ultimate sacrifice?

And to Mr Alvarado some clarification is required. Yes, there are people who oppose the war and those who support the troops and the mission. You, sir, oppose the war and people like myself support the troops and the mission. Again, some people in Minnesota are against the war and the Bush Administration but not all. You should be clear about that as well as the other statements you made.

You want to be heard, fine. But understand there is a risk/reward factor here. The reward is for a brief period you feel better for having done something you feel compelled to do. The risk is you defeat your own purpose of wanting to end the war by giving incentive to the enemy to continue which only opposes your intent. Winning the war will also end it without surrender or defeat. And if you claim you support the troops then for their sacrifice victory is the only satisfactory outcome to honor their service.

Any failures of the government to adequately attend to the needs of veterans is the only ocmplaint you cite that has merit. A travesty to those who served is to fail in providing the services they need as a result of that service. But there are better ways to solve that problem than protesting the war. Redirecting your energies to direct contact with those responsible for providing service to veterans will prove more successful than the longshot of public protest.

And of course there was protest about the environment, health care and Gitmo. Were you really protesting the war or simply broadcasting the far left agenda at the opposition party’s convention?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Thousands of Anti-War Protesters March to Site of Republican Convention
By Lisa Ferdinando
St. Paul
01 September 2008
Thousands of people rallied outside the Republican Party national convention on Monday, protesting the war in Iraq and the policies of the Bush administration. The march was mostly peaceful, but some small groups of protesters created disturbances and confronted police, and several people were arrested. VOA’s Lisa Ferdinando is in St. Paul, Minnesota.

A protester kicks a smoke bomb during a protest at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, 01 Sep 2008

Protesters marched from the capitol building in downtown St. Paul to the arena where the Republican Party national convention opened Monday in an abbreviated session.

Young and old, and parents with children participated in the march. They carried signs with slogans such as “Say No to War,” “U.S. Out of Iraq” and “Support the Troops, End the War.” Police in riot gear stood watch as demonstrators made their way through the streets.

They marched around the security perimeter surrounding the convention site. Some protesters vandalized property, and police dispersed them.

Among the marchers was 27-year-old military veteran James Gilligan with the group, Iraq Veterans Against the War. He called for changes in health care and the treatment of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It’s a damn shame that a veteran can go ahead and serve for his country, go into battle, watch his brothers and sisters fall around him, come home, and, if he doesn’t want to go again, he’s kicked out of the military,” said James Gilligan.

Protesters arrested in a field behind the Minnesota Science Center, 1 Sep. 2008

The Iraq war has been a dominant issue in the presidential campaign. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, while Senator John McCain, who will be formally nominated at the convention as the Republican candidate, favors keeping American forces in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country.

Lou Alvarado, a resident of St. Paul, took part in the march.

“I want the world to take notice that people are against the war,” said Lou Alvarado. “People here in Minnesota are against the war and against the Bush administration. We don’t go along just to go along and get along. I’m here to let my voice be known and let it be heard and put the message out.”

The protesters also demonstrated for stricter environmental policies and for better health care, and against the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

All you need to know about the RNC protesters By Michelle Malkin

Below is the far left answer for the White House. He asks John McCain not to question his patriotism. John McCain’s patriotism speaks for itself based on his personal record. Obama has no record outside of sound bites and policy suggestions that fail. He says he has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. The excerpt below is an example of the kind of leadership he offers. He was advocating surrender, withdrawal and defeat in 2006 and earlier. John McCain supported the troop surge and it was a success. He opposed the handling of the war before the surge and is why he supported victory in Iraq with the surge. So who do you want running the country? Surrender, withdrawal and defeatist appeaser Barack Obama or experienced Senator, Veterean and War Hero John McCain?

Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007
POSTED: 5:08 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, arguing that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.

“The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy,” said Obama, a freshman Democrat from Illinois touted as a possible national candidate in 2008.

“It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America’s efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won.

And Barack Obama likes to court the far left of which he is a member. The big resume’ he touts is community organizer and state senator in Illinois. His legislative experience has been analyzed as containing too many ‘present’ results in his voting record rather than taking a stand on issues. Two ends of the spectrum for McCain would be his staunch support of the troop surge against compelling opposition in which he is vindicated. His support of amnesty nearly derailed his pursuit of the nominatin for President. He admitted he was wrong and ‘learned his lesson’. This blog is as yet unconvinced on that point but will take John McCain over Barack Obama any time. Read Obama’s silly speech excerpt to the far left listed below.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

The report from VOA listed below is the inspiration for this post. From the report, the real bottom line is John McCain’s quote on Obama, ‘“Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of failure for America over the path of success and victory,” McCain said. “In short, both candidates in this election have pledged to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Tells McCain Not to Question His Patriotism

By Jim Malone
Washington
Malone report - Download (MP3)
Malone report - Listen (MP3)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Tuesday urged his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, to stop questioning his character and patriotism. Obama spoke to the same veterans group in Florida that McCain addressed the day before when he accused Obama of putting his political ambitions ahead of U.S. national interests. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has the latest on the presidential campaign from Washington.
Senator Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, Florida, that Afghanistan remains the central front in the war on terrorism, and that he was right to oppose the war in Iraq from the start.

Obama also challenged Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, to refrain from further attacks on his patriotism.

“I have never suggested and never will that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics and personal ambition,” Obama said. “I have not suggested it because I believe he genuinely wants to serve America’s national interests. Now it is time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same. Let me be clear-I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain.”

A day earlier, Senator McCain told the same conference that Senator Obama had put his own political ambitions ahead of the national interest by trying, in McCain’s words, to legislate failure in Iraq.

McCain opposes Obama’s proposal for a troop withdrawal timetable in Iraq, and he criticized Obama again for refusing to acknowledge the success of the Bush administration’s military surge strategy in Iraq.

“Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of failure for America over the path of success and victory,” McCain said. “In short, both candidates in this election have pledged to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.”

Apart from the debate over Iraq, both presidential contenders are focused on picking their vice presidential running mates and getting ready for the national nominating conventions.

Obama is expected to pick his running mate first, since the Democratic convention begins Monday in Denver, Colorado. The latest media speculation focuses on Democratic Senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

Senator McCain is expected to announce his choice shortly before the Republican convention begins on September 1 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.

Much of the Republican speculation has focused on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

Public opinion polls show a close race at the moment with a slight edge to Obama. Both contenders will be looking to get a boost out of their party conventions before they enter the general election campaign in early September.

University of Virginia expert Larry Sabato says the presidential candidates and their parties try to maximize the impact of the modern political conventions.

“The reason why conventions still matter is because millions of voters are distracted. They are busy,” Sabato said. “A convention is a wonderful opportunity for both parties to [tele] scope into just four days their major arguments on behalf of their candidate and their party.”

Each party convention will last four days, and will culminate with the party nominees giving a televised acceptance speech, watched by millions, both in the U.S. and around the world.

Musharraf Allies Say Talks Could Lead to Resignation, Legal Immunity

By Barry Newhouse
Islamabad
Newhouse report - Download (MP3)
Newhouse report - Listen (MP3)

Allies of Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf say there are ongoing talks with his political opponents about allowing Mr. Musharraf to resign without facing impeachment charges. But VOA’s Barry Newhouse reports from Islamabad that the president’s spokesman continues to deny that Mr. Musharraf plans to step down.

Days before Pakistan’s coalition government says it will reveal several impeachment charges against Mr. Musharraf, some of the president’s allies say there are ongoing talks between the two sides that could allow Mr. Musharraf to quietly resign without facing impeachment or criminal charges.

A spokesman for the president, Rashid Qureshi, is denying that the president plans to step down or is seeking a deal for legal immunity.

But Senator Mushahid Hussein, a senior leader of the president’s Pakistan Muslim League Q party, confirms in an interview with VOA that there are talks under way for some sort of compromise agreement. He says “the next few days will be decisive” in the standoff.

“I don’t speak for the president but I can certainly say there are backchannels between the presidency and the government which are trying to reach an amicable settlement - so that the country can move on,” said Hussein.

Political analysts say a drawn out impeachment struggle against the man who has ruled Pakistan for nearly nine years would dredge up old controversies and consume the government’s attention when the country faces other serious economic and security problems.

But the coalition government, which spent months haggling over its policy toward the unpopular president, last week made unseating Mr. Musharraf its primary goal.

Since then, a series of lopsided no-confidence votes in the country’s four provincial assemblies that included some defections from traditionally pro-Musharraf parties have eroded the president’s political support.

With the two sides discussing terms under which Mr. Musharraf could resign, some Pakistani officials say U.S. diplomats have lobbied for a dignified exit for Mr. Musharraf. The U.S. embassy insisted the issue is an internal matter for the Pakistani people to decide.

Senator Mushahid Hussein called one possible option for Mr. Musharraf, the “Richard Nixon formula,” in reference to the U.S. president who resigned before his likely impeachment in 1974.

“A variation of that could be seen in Pakistan where perhaps there would be a quiet resignation, there would not be any impeachment and Mr. Musharraf would fade quietly into the night to his newly built residence on the outskirts of Islamabad,” he said. “And there would not be any kind of charges or prosecution afterward. People don’t want to see it as any kind of a blood feud - that’s not in the national interest.”

So far, members of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party have insisted that the president stand trial for alleged crimes he has committed while in office even if he resigns. The stance of the Pakistan People’s Party on the issue has been unclear.

from MoreWhat.com:

Musharraf was more often than not playin’ ball with the US. As in most cases in the history of our foreign policy, we get the good with the bad. A question about Musharraf might include the obvious how much did he really do to quell terrorism or assist with rounding the bad guys. Did he keep the peace in his country and were Bhutto’s supporters largely made up of wealthy, educated liberals that ignored the less wealthy as much as Musharraf. But the more important questions deal with tensions between Pakistan and India and what may happen to American interests if someone really replaces Musharraf. Be careful what you wish for is a statement that comes to mind.

Stanford Matthews

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Reject the UN
Screw the UN
Conservative Thoughts

In the spirit of the season of giving this Christmas post is dedicated to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces around the world in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Also in the spirit of the season it should be made clear that goodwill toward men is a phrase that requires setting aside other matters if only for a moment as dictated by circumstance. With that in mind you may still find it a little peculiar that there would be a kind word for an outfit like MoveOn.org. But hey, it’s Christmas and regardless of anything else and that things may change shortly, one should give credit where credit is due. Assuming this is not a hoax and ignoring the natural tendency to comment on items outside the scope of the story, Stanford Matthews from the Blog @ MoreWhat.com would like to go on record thanking those at MoveOn.org for raising a serious six figures for the troops at Christmas.

Even The Grinch Would Like This: MoveOn Raising Money For Troops
By Martin Kady II
Dec 21, 2007

(The Politico) Remember that whole “General Betray Us” advertisement back in September that criticized Army Gen. David Petraeus?

Well MoveOn.org, that scourge of the right wing, is raising money like crazy for a Christmas gift for the troops.

In the past 24 hours, MoveOn, perhaps the most powerful liberal advocacy group in the country, has raised $275,000 for the United Services Organizations (USO) for calling cards for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USO may be most associated with Bob Hope-type visits to troops overseas, but the non-partisan organization is clearly comfortable partnering with MoveOn if the cause helps soldiers stationed overseas during the holidays.

It is not a surprise that President Bush would again remind the country of our troops and their families for the incredible sacrifice and commitment being contributed daily. At the very least we can remember them in our prayers and spread the word so they know we are thinking of them and exceedingly grateful for their service. The President’s weekly radio address included an often repeated sentiment for the troops as reported by VOA. Try to ignore the remainder of the report about someone else’s take which is not so pleasant.

President Bush Praises US Troops, Their Families
By Sean Maroney
Washington
22 December 2007

In his weekly radio address, President Bush thanked U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families for their sacrifices. “This Christmas, many will sit down for dinner thinking of their loved ones half a world away. These families deserve the thanks and the prayers of our whole nation,” he said.

There are news reports of generous efforts being provided by the public and various organizations to help the troops have some kind of Christmas away from home. If you want to help there are nearly countless ways to pitch in. If you have no idea where to start, simply use google and type the words troops and Christmas. Plenty of results will point you in the right direction. Or of course you can check with the DOD, any of the armed services, the USO or your elected representatives or the VA or someone.

And finally, let’s make that annual effort to extend the good we think of during the holidays so the New Year can bring the kind of solutions needed to solve some of the world’s problems. If we all try again and keep repeating these sentiments to each other long enough, we might finally succeed with some major improvements.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year or whatever sentiment does it for you. Cheers.

The U.S. military is making an assessment of coalition strategy in Afghanistan in an effort to ensure that a recent increase in violence does not threaten long-term progress.

The effort, first reported in Sunday’s New York Times newspaper, was confirmed to VOA by a U.S. military official.

The assessment is being handled by Admiral William Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military activity in the Middle East and East Africa, as well as Afghanistan.

The official who spoke to VOA Sunday on condition of anonymity said Central Command is constantly assessing strategy and progress in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but that this effort by the admiral goes beyond the usual process.

The New York Times reports that Admiral Fallon’s assessment is one of three that will feed into a broader Afghanistan policy review early next year.

The Times says the others are being done by the State Department and the NATO alliance.

On Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates got approval for the development of a long term plan for achieving stability in the country during a meeting of key NATO members with troops in Afghanistan.

NATO has a total of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 14,000 Americans. In addition, the United States has another 12,000 troops in the country conducting counter-terrorism operations outside the NATO structure.

In other news, Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry says its troops have killed four Taliban members near Musa Qala, in the first fighting since the militants were ousted from the southern town.
By VOA News

By VOA News
08 December 2007

U.S. congressional leaders are close to finishing work on a compromise budget bill that includes money for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, without a deadline to withdraw the troops.

The $500 billion spending package would include at least $70 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while providing $11 billion more than what President Bush requested for domestic programs favored by Democratic Party representatives.

The agreement on the Iraq war funding represents the latest failed attempt by many congressional Democrats to impose a timeline that would bring U.S. troops out of Iraq. President Bush has adamantly rejected any timelines, and lawmakers in his Republican Party have firmly backed his efforts.

The measure is expected come to a vote in the House of Representatives early next week.