March 18-21, 2007
Mar 18 00:59 General Klobuchar From Baghdad: "Change Course" Mar 18 09:00 British Muslims Won't Turn Other Cheek Mar 18 09:45 General Klobuchar Disputes Verified Facts Mar 18 13:14 Gen. Petraeus: Things Are Improving Mar 18 14:10 Murtha In Full Denial Mode Mar 19 00:55 Liberal Logic, Kos Style Mar 20 07:36 Gore Faces Hostile Environment On Hill Today Mar 21 08:41 They Call This Leadership? Mar 21 12:28 Muslims Against CAIR?
Prior Years: 2006
General Klobuchar From Baghdad: "Change Course"
Gen. Amy Klobuchar, moonlighting from her day job as U.S. senator, is in Iraq, where she made this declaration:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar visited Iraq Saturday and declared that the United States needs to change course and begin withdrawing troops after nearly four years of fighting.Let's be blunt about something: Thinking that Amy Klobuchar has even a minimal understanding of the military is like trusting in Vladimir Putin as the spreader of democracy. Hew quotes read like the Democrats' talking points, which is the limit of her understanding of the military. In fact, that might be pushing it a bit.
"We've been in this longer than World War II," Klobuchar said in a telephone news conference from U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad.
The visit by Klobuchar and three other senators coincided with President Bush's assertion Saturday that some lawmakers want to "micromanage our military commanders" to force a withdrawal.
"I'm sure the President doesn't like it," responded the Minnesota Democrat, who supports a target date for withdrawing troops. "....I think it is a good thing that Congress is standing up and asking the tough questions and pushing for the tough solutions."
As for her statement that the "President doesn't like" Congress micromanaging the war, there's this little thing called the Constitution that says they can't. Their only ability is to shut off funds. PERIOD. That she's talking about taking extraconstitutional steps to stop the war isn't surprising. She talked about ignoring the Constitution last fall:
As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq. In fact, the leaders of Iraq's otherwise sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agreed that there should be a time frame for the drawdown of American troops. If the president is unwilling to provide a plan, Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so.You'd think that a lawyer would know the Constitution, wouldn't you? It's sickening to think that she'll be around another 5+ years making this type of idiotic statement. Ms. Klobuchar should talk to a Constitutional Law professor like Hugh Hewitt about the concept of separation of powers. She needs to learn that Congress can't set deadlines on wars. They can defund it but that won't happen because they'd get their heads handed to them in 2008.
The aggravation I get in watching Klobuchar's repeated willingness to ignore the Constitution is only surpassed by the Democrats' willingness to ignore new facts coming from Baghdad and Ramadi. Ms. Klobuchar's willing ignorance should be shaken by this poll, which shows Iraqis believe life is improving for them:
MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today. The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.These statistics won't change Democrats' opinions. They're impervious to the reality on the ground. The thing that's got to have Democrats worried is that this is another article from what should be a friendly press telling the story that life in Iraq is improving. I included the following good news from Iraq in this post:
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month. By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad , according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.I included this upbeat information, too:
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.Despite all that, Ms. Klobuchar thinks that we need to "change course", pretending that President Bush and Gen. Petraeus didn't already change course. The first major change in course came when President Bush had a 'come to Jesus' meeting with Maliki in Jordan. President Bush told him then that the MNF troops would go after anyone that was causing violence. President Bush told Maliki that politicians couldn't protect insurgents just because they were political allies.
Another change happened when they changed the RoE. These were all key points in Gen. Petraeus' plan. They seem to be working well thus far. Only a fool would argue that the course hasn't changed. Ms. Klobuchar's insistence that they need to change is proof of my statement.
Thank God that Ms. Klobuchar isn't setting policy for Iraq or for the GWOT. As long as she's denying what's happening in Iraq, she won't have any credibility with thinking, honest people. The only people that will find her credible will be the maggot-infested, dope-smoking anti-war lefties that already vote for her. At this rate, it'll be interesting to see how long before people figure out that she's just as dim of a bulb as Dayton was. I suspect it won't take long.
Posted Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:02 AM
No comments.
British Muslims Won't Turn Other Cheek
Salena Zito's column is a great side-by-side comparison of Christianity and Islam. It's also must reading. Here's the essence of that comparison:
It was the Muslim extremists who started marching in the streets of London, whipping others into a frenzy to march in other streets, that rocked this city a little over a year ago.The truth is that the characterizations of Islam as a religion of piece are difficult to sustain when you contrast their reactions to Christianity. It isn't that Christians have never fought wars. It's that their disposition on most things is to turn the other cheek. Based on the French riots, the bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the constant bombing of Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah, it's difficult to make a case that the current version of Islam is that of a religion of peace.
Protesters carrying signs with slogans that read, "Massacre those who insult Islam," "Bomb the UK" and "Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 will come" lined the streets near Hyde Park.
All of this fervor was in response to editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, first published in Denmark and subsequently run worldwide.
One year later, American film director James Cameron produced a documentary in which he claims to have found the bones of Jesus, a challenge to accepted Christian dogma that Jesus ascended into heaven. Christians believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Without that resurrection, Jesus basically becomes like Gandhi, a really nice guy.
There were no street protests, peaceful or otherwise, from Christian communities around the world. No calls for deaths, beheadings, or 9/11 copycat attacks.
Let's suppose you say that that's just a portion of those who practice the Muslim faith, that there are moderate Muslims. CAIR certainly touts itself as a moderate Muslim organization specializing in protecting Muslims' civil rights. Yet a brief scan of their history shows the falsity of their claims. If you look at their history, you'll quickly see their terrorist-sympathizing ways. You'll see their railing against a billboard in 1998 that characterized Osama as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."
They've also denied bin Laden's responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. As Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague "misunderstandings of both sides."
Let's suppose you claim that CAIR isn't moderate but that there are truly moderate Muslims. How would you explain the actions of the Muslims that murdered Theo van Gogh? How would you explain the London mosques where Richard Reid was filled with hate and anger that caused him to attempt his shoe bombing? How would you explain the slave trade by Muslims of Christians throughout North Africa?
At what point should we say that the peaceful Muslims are the exception, not the rule? At what point should we demand that Islamic leaders not defend every terrorist action? At what point is it right that become activists who fight to abolish governments that engage in slave trade and that treat women like property? The longer you think about it, isn't it already time?
Beck takes silence seriously: "For people to get killed, all it takes is for good men and women to do nothing, and that warning goes to good, decent Muslims as well."The PC Police will get after Beck for saying that but who cares? They're constantly in full insult mode over just about anything.
If you need proof, said Beck, take a crash course on how Islam's Sharia law begins. Do a little homework on how things started in the Sudan:
"'Oh, well, it is just a little Sharia law, we will just let them have this little power'," Beck said, describing the reaction of 'good' Muslims to the new order. Beck added: "And, before you know it, they are butchering people all over."
The facts clearly show that violent Islam is more the rule than the exception. Isn't it time that we faced those facts before it's too late?
Posted Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:01 AM
No comments.
General Klobuchar Disputes Verified Facts
Earlier this morning, I wrote about 'Gen. Klobuchar' and her trip to Iraq. I posted about Ms. Klobuchar's trip based on a Strib article. Now I'm posting a 'Part II' based on this Pi-Press article. It seems that, not only is Ms. Klobuchar a master military strategist; she's also a master statistician:
Last week, officials in Baghdad released figures suggesting the surge of American forces has rapidly reduced violence. Klobuchar said that's not clear. "Some of the violence has been pushed out to other areas, but I think it's too early to tell," she said. "It'll be best evaluated in the middle or late summer."That statement is a pile of Barbra Streisand. Here's some statistics that 'Gen. Klobuchar should chew on:
The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.What part of this report doesn't Gen. Klobuchar understand?:
Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.I've also seen articles that the dropping violence in Baghdad, caused directly by the troop surge, is also allowing troops to be deployed in surrounding cities, essentially robbing the terrorists and insurgents of regrouping places and sanctuaries.
She said visiting with Minnesota soldiers had an effect on her. "Seeing the troops here whose parents and brothers and sisters I've talked to over the last several years is really meaningful to me," she said. "No matter what we think of this war, people need to know our troops are giving it their all."Wouldn't it be nice if Ms. Klobuchar supported the mission, not just the troops? It's a shame that these valiant troops have to hear armchair privates like Ms. Klobuchar berating their mission? That can't be easy to hear when they're in harm's way.
Posted Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment 1 by Rubin at 24-Mar-07 09:17 PM
That statement is a pile of Barbra Streisand
LOL thanks for that. lol!
Gen. Petraeus: Things Are Improving
Contrary to what 'Gen.' Klobuchar thinks, Gen. Petraeus thinks that the surge is improving Iraqi lives. I think I'll trust Gen. Petraeus' analysis over Ms. Klobuchar's. Here's what Gen. Petraeus thinks:
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC that with two out of the five extra brigades now on the ground in Iraq, there had been fewer sectarian attacks.That isn't all he said:
Gen Petraeus said: "By early June, we should then have everyone roughly in place, and that will allow us to establish the density in partnership with Iraqi security forces that you need to really get a good grip on the security situation." He said there were "encouraging signs", although he added that he did not want to get "overly optimistic at all on the basis of several weeks of a reduced sectarian murder rate".Finally, there's this:
He said the new operation had led hundreds of families to return to "neighbourhoods that had really emptied out".How can anyone ignore the facts that've been reported this week? Shouldn't Amy Klobuchar's credibility suffer for her doubting the reports of decreasing sectarian violence and dramatically dropping American military fatalities?
Isn't it time that informed Americans tell Democrats that we won't settle for defeat, especially declared unilateral defeat?
Posted Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:15 PM
No comments.
Murtha In Full Denial Mode
John Murtha appeared on CNN's Late Edition, spewing his usual stuff. Here's the opening exchange between Murtha and Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: I want your immediate reaction to what the new defense secretary, Robert Gates, said earlier today on CBS concerning some of the Democratic proposals to deal with the situation in Iraq. Listen to Gates.Just in that brief diatribe, John Murtha shows that he's willing to ignore the Constitution because the ends justify the means. He's essentially saying that it's ok to ignore the Constitution because the President's plan didn't work. It's a sorry state of affairs when someone who's sworn to uphold the Constitution says that he's going to ignore the Constitution's section on separation of powers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SECRETARY OF ROBERT M. GATES: The concern I have is that if you have specific deadlines and very strict conditions, it makes it difficult if not impossible for our commanders to achieve their objectives and, frankly, as I read it, the house bill is more about withdrawal regardless of the circumstances on the ground than it is about trying to produce a positive outcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right, Congressman. What do you think?
MURTHA: Well, here's the problem. They've mismanaged this war. They talk about us micromanaging. They've mismanaged the war so badly, they put the commanders in impossible positions.
These commanders are demanding more troops and yet the troops aren't home for a year, they're being extended, they're being sent in without equipment, without...look, they're going to ask for a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars in the next year between last year's appropriation and next year's appropriation. And we should have accountability. The contractors are falling all over each other. We need benchmarks. The Iraqis are not going to pay any attention to the threats because they keep making threats over and over again. We have a responsibility to the American people to get these troops out of there. The first step to redeploy, or the first step to stability is redeployment of the troops in Iraq.
Another laughable part of his opening diatribe is when he complains that President Bush will ask for "a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars in the next year between last year's appropriation and next year's appropriation." Coming from the man who's made pork-barrel defense spending his ongoing re-election tactic, that should ring hollow.
Then Murtha gives his usual misreading of the election by saying that "We have a responsibility to the American people to get these troops out of there" as part of his foolhardy redeployment. If the American people genuinely want us out of Iraq, there shouldn't be any trouble getting defunding legislation passed through the House. Unfortunately for Murtha, that isn't what voters said last November. What they said was that they didn't like the way the war was being waged because they wanted a victorious ending to the war.
Then there's this exchange:
BLITZER: All right, so, for our viewers who aren't familiar with the details of what you would like to see happen, explain very briefly how quickly do you want to see combat forces start withdrawing and completely withdrawing?There's a multitude of problems with Murtha's statement. It's impossible to honestly say that "there's no progress." Does John Murtha think that an 80 decrease in violence isn't progress? Does John Murtha think that a 60 percent decrease in American fatalities in a month isn't progress?
MURTHA: Well, what our legislation says that they have to...if there's no progress, and I'm talking about if their economic progress, oil production, electricity production, all the things we measure aren't better by July 1st, they have to start redeployment.
BLITZER: July 1st of this year?
MURTHA: July 1st of this year. If they do get better, then March of next year they should start redeploying.
BLITZER: Because they're saying there has been some...at least initial progress.
MURTHA: Well, that's what they say, but they said this right along. This is part of the problem. Every time they say there's progress, Wolf, it turns out there's no progress, and then they have to backtrack. For instance they say everything is getting better, yet oil production, electricity production are all at below prewar levels. Incidents have increased outside Baghdad. They're less in Baghdad but have increased, and you saw the latest casualty figures.
So it's not necessarily getting better. All of us hope it'll get better, but you have to do something dramatic if you want it to get better. And one of the things they haven't done, every time something happens, they step in, send in American troops. And these American troops are being punished and it's individuals.
Wolf, here is the problem we have. It's not thousands of troops. It's each individual troop who hasn't been home. It's each individual troop who hasn't been trained, it's each individual troop who doesn't have the equipment they need to go into combat.
Murtha's saying that casualties in Baghdad have shrunk but the "incidents have increased outside Baghdad" is proof that the surge is working. The first mission of the surge is to eliminate the sectarian violence in Baghdad, then to hold those areas, then finally to eliminate the insurgents as they try escaping. the fact that incidents have increased outside Baghdad is proof that the insurgents are fleeing Baghdad. At least they're attempting to flee:
Coalition forces have detained about 700 members of the Mahdi Army, the largest Shiite militia in Baghdad, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday. On Saturday, President Bush said he was sending 2,200 more military police to Iraq for detainee operations. A White House memo said 16,000 suspected insurgents are already being held by allied forces.You'd think that Murtha would view the capturing of 700 Mahdi Army soldiers and 16,000 insurgents as progress but I guess he doesn't.
BLITZER: Listen to Senator John McCain. He's been an ardent supporter of the president's strategy. In fact, he thinks even more troops should have been deployed and should be deployed. But listen to this.Murtha is traveling a predictable path. He's the buffoon who said that al Qa'ida would disappear if we left Iraq:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: Some argue that Iraq is already a catastrophe, and we need to get our soldiers out of the way of its consequences. To my colleagues who believe this I say, you have no idea how much worse things could get.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. Do you want to respond to McCain?
MURTHA: Well, I think because they say it doesn't make it so. Because the White House says it, doesn't make it so. They're the responsible for the mismanagement of this war. They're responsible for the troop leaders having to ask for troops which they don't have. And they're depleting our strategic reserve.
JACK MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: People tend to say, well, if we leave there's going to be chaos. I don't believe that. Seventy-eight percent of the Iraqis say that's not going to happen, 78 percent of the Iraqis say it'll be,we're the ones that are causing this and al Qaeda's going to be,al Qaeda's going to disappear.Only a fool would think that al Qa'ida would disappear if we left. Isn't it time that we told this doddering old fool that we won't tolerate his dishonesty anymore? Isn't it time that we told him that we demand policymakers that rely of verified facts and coherent logic for their opinions?
Reality is that it's long past time for us to demand that of our policymakers. We've let legislators like Murtha have too much say in policymaking.
Originally posted Sunday, March 18, 2007, revised 29-Mar 1:29 PM
No comments.
Liberal Logic, Kos Style
Earlier this afternoon, I was berated by a Kossack diarist who said that I was part of a wide variety of stupid right wing blogs. Frankly, I wear that as a badge of honor. I decided to read a bit of the article just to see if I could find some humor in the post. I wasn't disappointed. The argument starts like this:
The entire debate is bullshit because the success or failure of any "surge" or "escalation" of U.S. forces in Iraq does NOT hinge on the increase or decrease of U.S. deaths in Iraq. It would seem that all sides--Progressive, Democrat, Republican, and Chiliastic Authoritarian Nutcase--have forgotten the very first reason that we ostensibly still have troops in Iraq in the first place: to stabilize Iraq as a sovereign, democratic nation and to get Iraqis to stop killing one another. That is, after all, the reason proffered by weak-kneed Democrats and lying Republicans for the continued presence of U.S. troops.Let's set aside the fact that I was joined by The Economist and Patrick Ruffini in citing this fact:
Coalition forces have detained about 700 members of the Mahdi Army, the largest Shiite militia in Baghdad, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday. On Saturday, President Bush said he was sending 2,200 more military police to Iraq for detainee operations. A White House memo said 16,000 suspected insurgents are already being held by allied forces.The Kossack makes this analogy to 'prove' that this argument is a pile of Barbra Streisand:
Let's say I deliberately break a jar full of scorpions. Then I call my friends to help me put the jar back together. My friends and I start getting stungs incessantly by the scorpions. My friends get pissed with me for breaking the jar in the first place, and the scorpion stings are frankly starting to swell and cause respiratory failure. So I call in more friends to help out--much to the chagrin of the friends I already have, who say I am abusing my friendships. Later, because we have more hands to push scorpions away, the average number of stings per minute starts to decline. I proclaim victory--while my friends deny it, because they say we're really getting stung at the same rate as before. Meanwhile, every single goddamn person in the room forgot our objective: to put the damn jar back together!I still haven't figured out why anyone thinks that this analogy is appropriate for my statistics proving that things are improving. The fact is that we've captured 700 soldiers in al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. The fact is that we've captured 16,000 insurgents. These are important statistics if you think that we have to take insurgents and militia soldiers off the streets before the Iraqi government can stabilize itself. After reading about the havoc that the militias and insurgents have wreaked on Iraq, I'd put capturing Iranian-funded militias and insurgents off the street as the MNF's highest priority.
The fact that US fatalities, both in real numbers and in percent is dropping, is proof that things are improving. The good news in this post is how upset the poster is with Democrats:
But perhaps worst of all, Democrats are setting themselves up for failure by conceding that a low to nonexistent number of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq would constitute success. On these terms, Bush could maintain permanent bases in Iraq with no troop deaths, and Dems would be forced into silence.In other words, he's upset that Democrats don't have the nerve to lose the war. He's upset that President Bush will get his way for the foreseeable future.
Posted Monday, March 19, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment 1 by thereisnospoon at 19-Mar-07 01:10 AM
The reference was not to "insurgents" captured (whatever that means--what proof do you have that they are actually "insurgents"?). "Insurgents captured" and number of U.S. troops dead are irrelevant to the job of attaining "victory" in Iraq.
The conflict in Iraq is an occupation--not a war. In war, there are two option: defeat and victory. But we are not fighting a war; we are attempting to stabilize a country we occupy. In occupation, there are only two options: annexation or withdrawal. The American People will not countenance occupation as Bush and Cheney went, so it's only a question of *when* we withdraw. The proper comparison is not WWII or Korea; it is instead the British occuption of India, or the French occupation of Algeria (all stupid, all illegal, and all costly for the occupiers in lives and treasure).
If I had any confidence whatsoever that continuing the presence of our occupying troops would lead to a stable, secure, peaceful and independent Iraq, I would support that in spite of the illegality and immorality of the initial invasion.
But continuing the U.S. presence will not succeed in getting that done. Talking about reduced U.S. troop deaths (not true) or capturing insurgents (as if there aren't more where those came from) proves nothing about the success or failure of the surge.
There is no military solution for the problems in Iraq; there is therefore no "victory" to be had, nor "defeat" to be espoused. There is only the number of people who will continue to die in a continuing, pointless occupation of a sovereign nation.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Mar-07 07:57 AM
"Insurgents captured" and number of U.S. troops dead are irrelevant to the job of attaining "victory" in Iraq.
They have everything to do with winning the war. If we don't eliminate them, Iran & al Qa'ida will overrun the country, which will be a bigger problem than currently exists.
The conflict in Iraq is an occupation; not a war. In war, there are two option: defeat and victory. But we are not fighting a war; we are attempting to stabilize a country we occupy. In occupation, there are only two options: annexation or withdrawal.
Why isn't this war? You say that it's an occupation. Cindy Sheehan saying that it's an occupation doesn't make it so. Dictionary.com defines occupation this way: the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.
Since we don't have control of Iraq, it isn't an occupation. It's still a war.
The American People will not countenance occupation as Bush and Cheney went, so it's only a question of *when* we withdraw.
If there's such a hunger for withdrawal, this should be the easiest votes for Democrat & Republican alike. Defunding the war should get 70 percent of the vote in both chambers.
The notion that there's a great hunger to withdraw is myth. I'll grant you that people were pissed with the President about the war but they were upset because they expect the US to win.
If I had any confidence whatsoever that continuing the presence of our occupying troops would lead to a stable, secure, peaceful and independent Iraq, I would support that in spite of the illegality and immorality of the initial invasion.
You say that you don't have confidence that our troops can win. Shame on you. As for this being an illegal war, shame on you again. After Operation Desert Storm, Iraq signed a ceasefire, not a surrender. That ceasefire was to a UN-sanctioned WAR. One of the conditions of that ceasefire was that he had to either hand over all of his chemical & biological weapons or show how he destroyed them. He refused to do that. Having violated the terms of the ceasefire, he handed the US & the Coalition the legal authority to resume the 1991 Gulf War.
Furthermore, Bill Clinton didn't get UN authorization for going to war in Bosnia. Does that mean that we're still illegally occupying that country?
Gore Faces Hostile Environment On Hill Today
Al Gore's long-awaited day on Capitol Hill has finally arrived. Based on these proposed questions, it's looking like he's walking into a hostile environment:
Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.It's one thing for Gore to make his statements to adoring audiences in Hollywood and elsewhere but this won't be the type of audience that will take his word as Gospel fact. In fact, I'd say that he's walking into a series of difficult questions.
Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?
Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?
Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)
The question that I most want to hear his answer on is how he explains how Mars', Jupiter's and Pluto's temps are also rising without the assistance of any man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions. I suspect that he'll attempt to slip that question without really answering it.
The other question that I want to hear him answer is "You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now?"
This won't be a fun day for Mr. Gore. In fact, I suspect his answers will be the talk of the town, especially on Special Report's roundtable tonight.
Posted Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:38 AM
Comment 1 by Robert at 21-Mar-07 02:48 AM
Great blog page...Keep the TRUTH flowing...
Comment 2 by Robert at 21-Mar-07 02:50 AM
ps check out FF website www.freedomfighteronthehomefront.com
They Call This Leadership?
When Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, there was a blizzard of legislation that was unleashed. Eventually, 8 of the 10 items on their Contract With America were signed into law. According to this Washington Times article, we shouldn't expect that same blizzard of legislation anytime soon:
A minimum-wage increase, which seems the most likely of the Democratic plans to get Mr. Bush's signature, has not yet been sent to the president because House and Senate leaders are still bickering over its specifics. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland last week grumbled over what he called a "slowdown" in the senate, while acknowledging his counterpart in that chamber has an uphill battle to pass legislation in a closely divided body. "I would like to have passed them all by now," he said. "I'm frustrated by it, yes."Before anyone gets their undies in a bunch, I'll 'admit' that the Senate didn't get alot done right away in 1995. That said, the issues contained in the Contract With America were much more plentiful and substantive than the Democrats' '6 for 06'. I've repeatedly said that Mitch McConnell is running rings around Harry Reid.
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada responded later that day: "Steny is my friend, and he hasn't spent much time in the Senate. They [the House] have expedited procedures on everything." Mr. Reid noted Democratic successes in his chamber, adding, "I think we've done really, really well."
That accounts for part of the lack of progress. The other major contributing factor is that the bills passed by Pelosi's House have little appeal in the nation. I don't have the polling data but I suspect that the minimum wage bill and the stem cell funding bill are the only bills with majority support.
Mr. Hoyer seemed especially irritated that his signature issue, increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, has been bogged down as the House and Senate negotiate a possible tax break for small businesses to offset the cost of raising the wage. "I cannot understand why anybody would want to trap hardworking people in the richest country on the face of the earth working 40 hours a week in a framework of 1997 wages," he said.The main reason it's hung up is because Senate negotiators want a small business tax cut included in the bill. It isn't that people "want to trap hardworking people" in a "framework of 1997 wages", as Representative Hoyer suggests.
The biggest problem facing the Democrats' agenda is Iraq. They've staked out so many different positions that it's impossible to placate them all:
Senators spent weeks negotiating resolutions on Mr. Bush's troop surge to Iraq, and House actions slowed to a crawl as Democrats offer smaller bills while huddling to come up with an Iraq plan. Now House leaders are building support among Democrats for the strategy, in the form of a troop-withdrawal timetable attached to a $124 billion war supplemental spending bill.The House radicals are demanding to micromanage the war with legislation. What's more, senators like Amy Klobuchar don't seem to understand the separation of powers principle expressed in the Constitution. Senate Republicans would prevent any restriction- and timetable-laden legislation to reach the President's desk because they still believe in the Constitution.
With that many conflicts to resolve, it's impossible to craft clean legislation. Don't expect things to change anytime soon.
Posted Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:42 AM
No comments.
Muslims Against CAIR?
This press release, issued by American Islamic Forum for Democracy, is proof that CAIR's influence is being challenged. It's instructive that AIFD is willing to challenge CAIR's effectiveness as advocates. It's worth noting that they didn't come out against CAIR's goals, just their methods. AIFD's statement has 6 bullet points to it. Here are the ones that I found noteworthy, along with my commentary:
We will not accept the victimization agenda of organizations like CAIR.CAIR tosses around terms like Islamophobes and Muslim haters freely in an attempt to bully people into not criticizing their organization. Fortunately, I've never cared about political correctness so I'm not intimidated by these stunts. The truth is that CAIR is a strong believer in the Democrats' victimhood agenda because it fits their needs for the time being.
One of the frontlines in the war on terror is at the airports and at the gates. While the imams were clearly removed for their behavior after entering the plane , it should be made clear that many less rigid but equally pious Muslims believe (including 3 out of 6 of the imams for that matter) that the prayer they performed could have been performed upon landing in Phoenix due to travel dispensations in Islam or privately on time while seated on the flight.The principles that AIFD lays out are principles that I've talked about before. I talked about Muslims' ability to pray while seated or pray in private. I listed here why the imams were removed from the flight. Now AIFD is saying the same thing.
Such misguided priorities by Muslim activist organizations like CAIR will make the legitimate defense of our civil rights far more difficult when more serious complaints of racism and discrimination are involved.CAIR has a reputation of crying wolf about anything that they don't like. It isn't a stretch to say that they've cried wolf too often. AIFD seems to get that. They seem to understand that the things that CAIR has cried wolf about are relatively trivial and not worth the fight.
The organized Muslim community should instead be working on developing a strategic plan to counter militant Islamism within the Muslim community. That would do a lot more to change public opinion than suing the airlines who are trying to keep Americans who travel safe.Most Americans would see the providing of tips on sleeper cells as a positive. I haven't seen proof that CAIR is interested in that. One of their purpose seems to be criticizing law enforcement officials, especially when they arrest their leaders, something that's happened all too frequently.
Of all the bullet points, this one stands out the most for me:
It is our hope as Americans and as Muslims that U.S. Airways stand firm in its defense of its actions to have the gentleman removed for concerns regarding their behavior after entering the plane. This is not about race or religion. It is about the privilege to fly securely.That's so succinct that the best I can add to that is a hearty AMEN.
UPDATE: The Washington Times has a related article on CAIR's lawsuit. Here are some noteworthy quotes from the article:
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-area physician and director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group founded in 2003 to promote moderate Muslim ideas through its Web site (www.aifdemocracy.org), told The Washington Times his group will raise money for legal fees for passengers if they are sued by the imams. "It's so important that America know there are Muslims who understand who the victims are in air travel," said Dr. Jasser. "But I hope it doesn't get to that point because the backlash will be even greater when Americans see Islamists trying to punish innocent passengers reporting fears."Here's another noteworthy bit of information:
Gerry Nolting, whose Minnesota law firm Faegre & Benson LLP is offering to represent passengers for free, says the judicial system is being "used for intimidation purposes" and that it is "just flat wrong and needs to be strongly, strongly discouraged." "As a matter of public policy, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] presently tells traveling passengers to report suspicious behavior as part of its homeland security program," Mr. Nolting said. "This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but trying to intimidate and discourage reporting of suspicious behavior and [also discourage] the promotion of safe travel."Faegre & Benson is one of the highest profile & successful law firms in Minnesota. Their willingness to represent any John Does pro bono tells me that they're fairly confident that they could win this case. If that's true, it tells me that CAIR's bitten off more than they can chew.
Posted Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:34 PM
No comments.
