France to send more troops to Afghanistan

Umm....what's that you say about us going it alone? If any presidential candidate says that we have a "bunker mentality" and have lost the support of the world for our war on terror, it's safe to say that they don't know what's going on in the world and aren't prepared to lead:

Said Nicolas Sarkozy: “There is a war going on here, a war against terrorism, against fanaticism that we cannot and will not lose.”

[...]

By the way, both the Dutch and the Canadians (who finally elected a conservative as prime minister) have re-upped for tours of Afghanistan through 2010.

Oh and one more thing about timelines. Sarkozy said: “What is certain is that we have not wanted to give the signal of departure, that would have been a despicable signal at a time when one sees the ravages inflicted by terrorism in the world.”

Australia is also committed to sending more troops.

Democrats cave on SCHIP

Wow! They're caving on everything! At least they had the common sense to extend the program so that their desire to expand the program to cover adults won't effect the children or the price of cigars (I feel for the poor pastors who would have to go to the General Assembly without their cigar breaks and smoking parties or pay exorbitant prices to smoke).

The Democrats’ yearlong fight to boost federal spending on children’s health insurance ended with a whimper Tuesday.

After coming up short in their efforts to enact a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — enduring two presidential vetoes along the way — congressional Democrats signed off on Republican demands to extend the program until 2009.

Rather than expiring just before the presidential and congressional elections next year, SCHIP will keep running through March 2009 under the plan originally conceived by House Republicans and hashed out by the Senate Finance Committee and Senate leaders late Monday.

The GOP stood fast against the Democratic bill, which received veto-proof margins in the Senate but came up about a dozen votes shy in the House, despite attracting some GOP support. In doing so, it also stood fast against a multifaceted public relations campaign waged by the Democrats, allied liberal organizations and practically every industry in the healthcare sector. That strategy appears to have paid off, with Democrats abandoning, for now, their plans to ramp up SCHIP.

The GOP claimed victory. “It’s certainly another example of the Democrats caving to the Republican position at the eleventh hour,” said a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Not only did the GOP prevent the Democrats from expanding the program, the minority party prevented the majority party from using an SCHIP vote and veto next fall as a wedge issue just before Election Day.

(via)

Senate passes Iraq funding with no strings

A victory for Bush:

The Senate voted Tuesday to provide $70 billion for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing a victory to President Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill.

The 70-25 roll call paved the way for the Senate to pass a $555 billion omnibus appropriations bill combining the war funding with the budgets for 14 Cabinet agencies.

Bush was ready to sign the bill, assuming the war funding clears the House on Wednesday. Democrats again failed to win votes to force removal of U.S. troops or set a nonbinding target to remove most troops by the end of next year.

``Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need,'' said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The year-end budget deal between the Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush ended months of battling and disappointed GOP purists who complained the bill spends too much money and contains about 9,000 pet projects sought by members of Congress.

[...]

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group that opposes so-called pork barrel projects, counted 8,983 such ``earmarks'' worth $7.4 billion. These hometown pet projects include economic development grants, aid to local transit and police departments and clean water projects, among many others.

(via)

Hillary intends to ship Bill out of the country with Bush Sr.

Yeah, we buy that Hillary wants to improve America's image by sending Clinton out of the country. She's probably telling him how important it is so that she can get rid of him so he won't be undermining her work and to keep him away from the interns. And shouldn't Bush Sr. have come out swinging over Clinton's insult of the job his son is doing?

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

Who aren't we chummy with now? Germany, France, England have all been very supportive of our nation lately. Clinton is living in lasts years narrative, he needs to get with the new narrative because he looks ill-informed.

(via)

Ed Rollins might want to talk to his candidate about Reagan's eleventh commandment

Huckabee, who has admitted he doesn't know what he's talking about, criticized Bush's foreign policy. He sounds just like the left:

Mike Huckabee, who has joked about his lack of foreign policy experience, is criticizing the Bush administration's efforts, denouncing a go-it-alone "arrogant bunker mentality" and questioning decisions on Iraq.

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor now running for the Republican presidential nomination, lays out a policy plan that is long on optimism but short on details in the January-February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. A copy of his article was released Friday.

"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out," Huckabee said. "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."

In one specific criticism, Huckabee said Bush did not send enough troops to invade Iraq. And he accused the president of marginalizing Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who said at the outset of the war that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion. "I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice," Huckabee said.

[...]

Separately, Huckabee also named Republican political strategist Ed Rollins as his national campaign chairman. Rollins was national campaign director for Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.

Romney had the same take:

Mitt Romney accused Republican presidential rival Mike Huckabee of "running from the wrong party" for criticizing President Bush's foreign policy as an "arrogant bunker mentality."

Romney defended Bush against Huckabee's charge, which the former Arkansas governor leveled in the January-February issue of the respected journal Foreign Affairs.

"I can't believe he'd say that," Romney said to a gathering of about 100 supporters in a restaurant here. "I had to look again—did this come from Barack Obama or from Hillary Clinton? Did it come from John Edwards? No, it was Governor Huckabee."

It's clear to me that Huckabee is the most anti-Reagan candidate in the pack.

Congress gives Bush Iraq funds without timeline

I'm surprised they didn't fight this some more. I commend them for finally doing their job:

The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President George W. Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the U.S. Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administration's plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

The measure already had passed the House of Representatives and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.

Barbara Walters receives a religious Christmas card from the White House

And is shocked! Shocked that the White House would send out a card that would mention God in a Christmas card. What nerve of the White House to quote the Bible in a Christmas card! What about the poor atheist who receives the card?

Libby drops appeal

OK, I think that he's doing it because he knows he won't get a fair trial in DC but I know the left will look at this as an indication of his guilt. So, go ahead, lefties have your say.

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is no longer appealing his conviction in the CIA leak case, a tacit recognition that continuing his legal fight might only make things worse.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction but President Bush commuted his 30-month prison sentence in July. Had Libby won a new trial, that commutation would be meaningless and Libby would again face potential prison time.

"We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence," attorney Theodore Wells said Monday. "However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case, the burden on Mr. Libby and his young family of continuing to pursue his complete vindication are too great to ask them to bear."

Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. He was the only person to face criminal charges in the case.

After Bush's commutation, Libby paid a $250,000 fine and remained on two years probation. There was no guarantee Libby would do any better if he persuaded an appeals court to grant a new trial. In fact, by the time that new trial was over, Bush would likely be out of office and the result of that trial would almost certainly stick.

"The appeal would lead only to a retrial," Wells said, "a process that would last even beyond the two years of supervised release, cost millions of dollars more than the fine he has already paid, and entail many more hundreds of hours preparing for an all-consuming appeal and retrial."

(via)

WSJ blames Bush for NIE report

The incompetence of the Bush administration is bearing the seeds that he sowed. He should have taken care of the leakers and those who were hostile to his foreign policy years ago. Now they are trying to undermine his Iran policy:

President Bush has been scrambling to rescue his Iran policy after this week's intelligence switcheroo, but the fact that the White House has had to spin so furiously is a sign of how badly it has bungled this episode. In sum, Mr. Bush and his staff have allowed the intelligence bureaucracy to frame a new judgment in a way that has undermined four years of U.S. effort to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

This kind of national security mismanagement has bedeviled the Bush Presidency. Recall the internal disputes over post-invasion Iraq, the smearing of Ahmad Chalabi by the State Department and CIA, hanging Scooter Libby out to dry after bungling the response to Joseph Wilson's bogus accusations, and so on. Mr. Bush has too often failed to settle internal disputes and enforce the results.

What's amazing in this case is how the White House has allowed intelligence analysts to drive policy. The very first sentence of this week's national intelligence estimate (NIE) is written in a way that damages U.S. diplomacy: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Only in a footnote below does the NIE say that this definition of "nuclear weapons program" does "not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

In fact, the main reason to be concerned about Iran is that we can't trust this distinction between civilian and military. That distinction is real in a country like Japan. But we know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003, and Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, with 3,000 centrifuges, in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. There is no civilian purpose for such enrichment. Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from Russia at the plant in Bushehr. The NIE buries the potential danger from this enrichment, even though this enrichment has been the main focus of U.S. diplomacy against Iran.

All we are getting is the spin but not the truth. Our intelligence failed us on 9-11 and it looks like they are trying their best to fail us on Iran as well.

Erin Burnett Apologizes for Calling Bush a "Monkey"

Here. I thought it was actually helpful to know that the talking head who reads your news is a BDS suffer, we need to avoid their reporting since it is infected with their disease.

(via)

Related posts:
Erin Burnett refers to Bush as "the Monkey in the Middle"

Erin Burnett refers to Bush as "the Monkey in the Middle"

BDS in the workplace! How sad! I hope someone comes up with a cure someday.

Yeah, the MSM isn't slanted left at all.

(via)

Bush was Right on Embryonic Stem Cells

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.
[...]
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

George Bush, when you're right, you're right.

Bet you have not heard the news this week about the greatest scientific breakthrough since the discovery of DNA? (I'll leave it up to you to figure out why this is not being reported. It's not rocket science.)

Well, Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece in the Daily News worth pointing out.

"If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."

- James Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a President - so vilified for a moral stance - been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity - a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.

Bush was right to tread carefully, to not just throw money at something that had potential to further diminish the value of human life.

Now that the embryonic stem cell debate is over, I wonder what our wonderful Governor Jon Corzine has to say about that defeated ballot question now?

After all,

Mr. Corzine — who made embryonic stem cell research a major issue in his 2005 campaign for governor — blamed himself and other supporters of the measure for not doing a good enough job educating the public about the potential economic benefits. He also said the campaign could have done a better job clarifying that the $450 million was to be borrowed over 10 years, rather than all at once.

Oh, we were educated enough alright. I'll admit, for some New Jersyians it was only about the money, but for some, myself included, it was about the sanctity of human life.

Aren't you smart enough to see that Jon?

Michelle Malkin's “Posterizing” the Democrat Party contest

I've been too busy with my exegesis paper to keep up with my favorite blogs but I just noticed that Michelle Malkin has been running a Posterizing the Democrat Party contest as a goof on the HuffPost Posterizing the Modern GOP contest. Here is one of the finalists and my personal favorite:

I like this one as well:But she has a ton of other really funny posters, so go check them out if you haven't seen them yet.

What's so funny about the Huffington campaign is how backward it is:

The result is three powerful posters that simply but graphically capture the lunacy of the modern GOP. "Here is my thinking," Silverstein told me, "What if we could TiVo the last six-plus years and play them back - without comment -- for the American people, and let them connect the dots? It's not a pretty picture." Silverstein's take away message is uncluttered and direct: "Haven't we had enough? Democrats '08."

Go check out the posters, they are all related to Bush. Don't they realize that's so Maginot Line! They're fighting against an enemy they will not be facing in 2008. Thompson didn't have anything to do with the things listed on the posters, neither did Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani. Their "modern GOP" is actually the old GOP. They better learn to fight the enemy they have, not the one they're fixated on.

Tags: Michelle Malkin, Huffington Post

McClellan's Publisher: Bush did not lie to McClellan

After making a splash by implying that Bush was part of a conspiracy:

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, released Monday on the publisher's web site, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

McClellan's publisher sets the record straight:

Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher.

Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."

Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."

Of course the left aren't going to buy it. I can just see the comments that I'm going to get for this post.

"Impeach them all!"

When I read these words of Rosie:

his administration is criminal
IMPEACH THEM ALL

happy thanksgiving peeps

(via)

The words of the Queen of Hearts leapt to mind: "Off with their heads!"

"Bush Death Watch: Countdown"

That's the title of an article on SF.com which is the San Francisco Chronicle's website. Here's an excerpt:

It is less than one year until the country finally takes a deep breath and flexes its atrophied muscles and opens its bloody, Cheney-punched mouth and lets it be known to the world, to the universe, to its own numb and dejected soul just exactly how unwell it has felt, how much pain has raked its heart, lo, these past seven (eight, by then) years, by ushering in an entirely new political era, as we all exhale a massive sigh of long overdue relief that - praise Jesus, Allah, Buddha and the devil all at once - the long national nightmare of George W. Bush is finally over.

It's sad when BDS clouds the judgment of the editors of a newspaper and allows them to publish the ravings of someone suffering from insanity.

BTW, we when Clinton left the White House that would be the end of him, oh how wrong we were. Better hope that we never elect his brother or nephews as our presidential candidate or he might be coming back (hehehe).

BDS in the world of bridge

BDS is such a pernicious thing and infects a wide variety of people. It's such a shame when it leads to the loss of income:

In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.

At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”

By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”

“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”

[...]

“What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,” Ms. Greenberg said, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not her six teammates.

[...]

The proposed sanctions would hurt the team’s playing members financially. “I earn my living from bridge, and a substantial part of that from being hired to compete in high-level competitions,” Debbie Rosenberg, a team member, said. “So being barred would directly affect much of my ability to earn a living.”

(via)

What's amazing to me is the arrogance that it takes to even write the sign. Who cares if you're critical of the president? What does that have to do with bridge? Just insane. And if you don't want you income impacted, maybe you should learn to discipline yourself and not throw political bombs where they don't belong.

Congressional Democrats in Spending Standoff With Bush.

If they weren't spending all their time voting for meaningless resolutions, they might have had a funding bill by now:

President Bush may have lost a veto battle last week on a water projects bill, but GOP allies in Congress are sticking with him in another, bigger veto showdown over government spending.

Democrats are struggling to draw up a playbook to finish this year's spending bills for Cabinet departments, the most basic job of Congress. While the new budget year began Oct. 1, Democrats have completed action on just two bills -- funding defense and health and education programs.

Some of the Democrats' early decisions have appeared to cede even more leverage to Bush, while internal divisions within the party have contributed to the delays in getting bills finished and sent to the White House.

On three votes last week, House and Senate Republicans stood with Bush to demonstrate they will sustain his looming veto of the health and education spending bill, a top Democratic priority.

As Republicans learned so painfully when President Clinton used veto after veto to beat them during the 1990s, the veto pen is the ultimate weapon in legislative warfare. And its power is especially potent in situations like the present, which deals with spending bills for agency budgets that lawmakers are eager to pass.

[...]

But in a move that left some Congress-watchers scratching their heads, Democrats have given up much of what leverage they had by sending Bush the only spending bill he really seems to care about, a $471 billion budget for the Pentagon. There had been speculation they would hold the measure in reserve to try to force the White House to negotiate, but with that bill in hand, Bush is free to play hardball on the rest.

Maybe they're smart enough to realize that the Republicans would charge them with playing politics with the safety of the troops. It would be all over the Internet like wildfire that the Democrats love pork more than the troops. I would certainly be saying it :-)

If Pelosi was as good as her press, she would have taken hold of the reigns and gotten the bills put together sooner so that she wouldn't look so inept. It's a testimony to her leadership skills that the budget is so late.

Plus the Democrats have given the Republicans a huge campaign issue by demonstrating that they really are the tax and spend party. And as the last election demonstrated, I don't think the people are in the mood for more taxes no matter what they're getting.

Pelosi should be commended for keeping her promise...

I beat up the Democrats on this blog quite a bit so when they do something honorable, I think it should be noted. I'm thankful that Pelosi has kept her promise not to attempt to impeach Bush and Cheney. She said it was off the table and evidently it is.

Bush explains Mukasey inability to answer the waterboarding question

The reason Mukasey could not answer the waterboarding question:

Bush said Mukasey could not give such a legal opinion because the program is classified and the nominee has not been briefed on it. Mukasey also did not want to telegraph information about interrogation methods to dangerous detainees, Bush said.

The president also said Mukasey did not want to issue an "uninformed legal opinion" because interrogators in the field would wonder whether any of their conduct places them in legal jeopardy.

"Congressional leaders should not make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to make a public judgment about a classified program he has not been briefed on," Bush said.

Nominated in September, Mukasey was initially considered a sure bet for confirmation until he repeatedly refused to say in Senate hearings whether he defines waterboarding as torture.

Democrats denounced the dodge, and the chairman of the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced Friday he would vote against Mukasey.

The Democrats know this, it's clear they just want to embarrass the president and score political points. If this was such and issue, why are over 20 Democrats expected to vote for him?

BTW, before any of you lefties make any obnoxious comments, I'm totally against torture of any kind. I think there are more effective ways of obtaining information.

Tags: Mukasey