As the Title suggests I am a vet, and proud of it, and proud of all those that wear the uniform of the United States of America. You name it we'll talk about it. Politics, sports and much more. However, I am also very interested in what is happening to this great country of ours, politically and socially...So SOUND OFF PRIVATE!!!
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bulletproof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the US, yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the he president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another . Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O. J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way...... Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY.....
"There are two ways to live your life. One as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." Albert Einstein
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Basically, the people are speaking out as well as the sponsors of such programs like that of Imus. However, what about the flip side of this. Most of us know what the words "nappy headed" means. It is a derogatory way of describing members of the black or African American community from their hair. It has been around for years, though to me, I find it very offensive. What about the word N***** (fill in the blanks), another word that the African American community finds distasteful and derogatory, yet is used on a daily basis in the African Community. A term defined in American Heritage Dictionary as:
nig·ger (nĭg'ər) n. Offensive Slang.
Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: “You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger” (James Baldwin).
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: “Gun owners are the new niggers . . . of society” (John Aquilino).
Offensive? Yes indeed. But if it is so offensive to blacks in general, why do they use it on a regular basis, in general conversation and more so when agitated at another "brother"? Yet, let a non-black say it or use it and all hell breaks out. As for the words "nappy headed Ho's" these too are used regularly by the black community. To me they are just as offensive and more so due to the fact that they pertain only to the black woman. Yet here again, the word "HO" is directed in a derogatory manner toward women, and not just black women. I would dare anyone to pick up a rap or hip-hop CD and find any song on the CD that did not use those words or even worse in their general description of the women in their songs or rantings.
America is being held at a double standard. Is it alright for rappers like Snop Dog and others to defame women by using these words and more? Why? Because they are black? Or is it because if you made them remove the derogatory words from their songs, it would sound more like a church hymn? This is where the double standards come into play. Imus is being raked over the fire and the rap and hip-hop community is being given a green light. Personally, I am fed up with the trash that some are calling songs. We have let things go to such a point that there is no gray area anymore. It is either black or white, right or wrong, or politically correct. But WHO determines what is "politically correct"? The politicians, the rappers, the religious left or right? Or is that simply left up to you and I?
There is the argument that for hip-hop and rap you have to buy into it by purchasing their music. Therefore you know what you are in for. Isn't it the same with radio talk shows? I mean if you don't like what that radio host is saying you can always turn the channel. If you continue to listen to something that is offensive, and then rant about it being done, is like the pot calling the kettle black. It just doesn't float. I can understand the outrage of certain members of the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team. But to claim that it has "scared them for life" is a big stretch. Yes, it took away from the glory that they achieved, but how did what Imus say scar them for life. I would venture to say that most of the black players on the Rutgers Team have heard those words most of their life from their peers. Don't you think that they would have been scared far worse from having these words thrown out there all their life?
If blacks don't want everyone to use these defaming words, they need to cut them out of their vocabulary altogether. For as long as the African American community continues to use these phrases, others will feel that they can say them as well. It shouldn't matter whether or not you are black or white, green, purple or brown. Stop saying them and praising them in your songs black America and maybe, just maybe the rest of the world will get the hint. Sure there will always be those idiots out there (like the White Power movement, or the KKK) that will continue to use these phrases and worse. But for the African American Community to allow Sharpton and Jackson be their spokes persons is really scratching the bottom of the barrel. For both of them have made worse comments about other groups. If you are going to clean up terms used by entertainers (all of them) go all the way and have everyone do it, including the African American community. It is no more proper for you to use derogatory words about other races then it is for Imus or others to use these words about you.
I have many black friends and have had for a very long time (forty plus years), so I don't consider myself a racist, not even in the broadest of terms. I chose and pick my words very carefully. Not because I am afraid of what might happen, but because I try to treat each person with the dignity they deserve until proven otherwise. Even then I don't call them racially slurred names. Does Imus deserve to be fired? That is something that the sponsors and management will have to decide. Should he be forgiven? That is up to the Rutgers Team, not the likes of Sharpton or Jackson or any other self proclaimed protector of the black race to decide. After all he didn't make the comment to you, he made it at them. Stop trying to have it both ways. Let's clean it all up and get on with life, by working together.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
But does this relinquish the President of any responsibility? Not hardly. After four years of going it alone, with some of his supporters in the Congress, the war has been terribly mismanaged. Both on the ground and in the administration. Several generals that have served in Iraq since the action started and some of the retired generals have tried to explain it to the president that the troops can not win the battle alone, diplomacy must be a open avenue to pursue as well. With more and more scandals or so called scandals coming to light, things do not look well for the Bush Administration. However, be it understood that the Democrats are doing everything in their power to strip the President of any resemblance of power or authority with many wasteful committee hearings costing the Public millions. From the GSA scandals to the Justice Department scandals, much of what the democrat led committees are hunting are purely ghosts.
Now the question becomes what of the troops? What will their fate be if this funding does not reach them before the end of April? Sources say that they will no longer be able to provide maintenance on their vehicles and equipment, and funding for various ongoing projects. Will the newly arriving troops be provided the equipment and materials that they need? But even more than this, what message has the newly formed Department of Defense (the Congress) sent to the troops. Are they telling them that they no longer have confidence in them? Without hesitation, YES. Are they telling Gen Petraeous, whom was just recently given a unanimous vote by the Congress to take over the Iraqi battle, that they no longer have confidence in him to conduct the mission? Again, the answer is YES.
The leaders of both Houses, Pelosi and Reid, are pretty much floating the boat at this point. Both think that now the President must “negotiate” with them to get things done. To a certain extent that is true, but not necessarily a must. The Democrat led Congress are the ones that should have, at the beginning of all this, stepped forward and conducted meetings with the president as to what possible avenues were available, before they forced the Presidents hand. The President does not carry the power to provide funds for the troops, this falls to the Congress. Even though the funding was provided in the bill, there were unconstitutional strings tied to it. The founding fathers provided that the President to be the Commander and Chief of the military, not the Congress. The Congress has the power of the purse to either fund or not fund the war, but not dictate it. So the Bill, though providing funds, should have collapsed on itself. However, since the newly elected DOD has stepped up to the plate challenging the power of the President, they are to be held responsible.
My greatest concern is how many troops are going to suffer or die because the new DOD wants to play with their lives and jeopardize the outcome of the mission. There is plenty of blame to go around, both republicans and democrats should be ashamed of their conduct and inability to look at the long term effect of this war, for both winning and failing.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
It would seem that the Democratic Party, that recently won both houses of Congress and who ran on a more transparent legislature and bringing the war in Iraq to an “immediate” end, are already bucking their own promise to the people. They promised to bring the Congress back to a pay-as-you-go status to avoid furthering the deficit and placing payment on our children and grandchildren in the years down the road. Yet according to almost all of the bills that have been passed by this Congress they have gone in the opposite direction.
S.10, a bill to “Reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement and reduce budget deficits by strengthening budget enforcement and fiscal responsibility”, has been read twice and placed into Committee on the Budget, but has yet to be brought to the floor for a vote. Is it the intent of the Democrats in Congress to wait until they have PORKED up every Bill that comes forward before they decide to vote on it? So it would appear.
Over the last few weeks alone the Democrats have placed more pork into bills than ever before. This pork, placed in emergency appropriations bills, totals out to more than $40 Billion dollars so far and there is probably more to come before it is all over with. This pork or amendments is not taken out of the operating expenses or general budget planned for this year, it will be taken on credit. Credit that our children and grandchildren will be paying for, for years to come. Is this the type of pay-as-you-go policy that they promised? I hope not.
To beef up their chances of passing bills in the house and in the senate, the Majority has placed every choke hold on their members thinkable to make sure that these bills pass. The so called “Blue Dog” Democrats, those that want to have a controlled spending government and the OUT OF IRAQ caucus members were bribed or threatened into placing yea votes on the recent appropriations bill so it would pass. Less than a dozen true “Blue Dog and Out of Iraq” members voted as they said they would, against the bill. Why not let them vote as their constituents voted for them. For this going against the grain, you can rest assured that there will be reprisals from the majority leaders later on down the road.
Yes, they voted on a more transparent legislature (S.1, passed January 22, 2007) but have yet to successfully conduct themselves as such, with behind closed doors amendments being placed into resolutions and not allowing debate or further amendments to be placed into the resolutions is a definite transparency of legislature. Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans were just as bad, but they didn’t run on that platform. The present Majority did, and they are failing miserably at it.
The agenda of the Democratic Party is becoming more and more relevant. Theirs is not to bring the country back together; but it is to place a much larger divide onto it. Power is a dangerous thing, and the Democrats have yet to learn how to use it wisely. It is true that they are in control, for now. But that control may be short lived if they continue to go against their own promises. If you were elected on ending the war, stop the funding and bring the troops home NOW. If not, don’t stand in their way of declaring victory at the days end. You don’t know what victory is, leave that up to the troops and their commanders.
The Republicans found out the hard way when they lost the last election because they thought they were too powerful to be replaced. They thought wrong, and are now paying the price for it. It is a dramatic shift when the majority of Americans find that the Democrats could be more “security minded” than republicans. A shift that everyone, but the Republicans, seemed to identify. They too have bogged down the democratic process that our nation was founded upon.
If this seems that I am “ragging” on both parties, you are right. I have been a life long Republican, voting straight party line ticket in major elections. That will now come to an end. Don’t clap to quickly Democrats; I am not joining your ranks either. I will, from this point on, consider myself a “no party” party. I will do what everyone should do, vote with my own mind and make my own decisions. It might be Republican on one issue or seat, and Democrat on another, and Independent on another. I will weigh each measure as it comes up and I will diligently research each candidate and issue, without playing off of the talking heads points from both parties. I think that it is time for all Americans to take back their rights and vote as you see fit. Neither party in office at this time is worth their weight in cow patties. I am not jumping ship because the Republicans lost the election, but for the simple fact that they have gone too far off center for me to support anymore. Neither party at this point in time has the balls to stand up to follow through with their promises, or their principals.
VOTE YOUR HEART AMERICA.
If they aren’t keeping their promises, vote them out. To hell with the power struggle, to hell with the back stabbers and to hell with the aisle jumpers. If you are elected on a platform, have the guts to stand on that platform and see it through. Another thing that I think should be voted on and passed into law is, TERM LIMITATIONS. Senators and should serve no more than two terms. If they can’t get it done in twelve years, screw them. Representatives should serve no more than three terms since they are elected every two years. Maybe this would help clean out the trash in Washington that seems to accumulate because so many members have been there so long.
Monday, March 26, 2007
However, while the media was focused on the US attorneys the public was more interested in Iraq (23%), Walter Reed (17%), and the 2008 Campaign (9%). Basically what this poll says is that the news media is trying to create the news by playing certain parts of it more often than other news. As the old saying goes, “If you say it long enough and loud enough people will take note”, falls well short in this recent poll. Americans are not that interested in the goings on of the US Attorneys.
Pew also points out that the attorney “scandal” only places 7th in scandals past and present in Washington D.C. It placed behind such notable scandals as Congressional Check Bouncing -36% (Apr 92), Scooter Libby-24% (Nov 05), Ethnic Charges against Newt Gingrich- 23% (91), Whitewater-22% (94), etc. So, where was the news media in their presentation of what most Americans consider pertinent news? They definitely were not in contact with what America wanted? This is just another indicator as to the agenda of the MSM and their push to bring more to the story than is there, at least in the eyes of the public.
Friday, March 23, 2007
This will probably be one of the shortest posts I have made since starting this Blog. Partially because of the anger that I feel, and more because there is little that can be done about it now. Today, the House of Representatives passed, narrowly, a bill that will require our troops to lay down their arms and tuck their tails between their legs and withdraw from Iraq.
True this bill has not become a law yet, it still has an up hill battle in the Senate and then it must be signed into law by the President. However, whether this bill makes it to the Presidents desk or not has sounded a troubling alarm. This gives the terrorists and their group a great victory, for they have once again broken the back of our military by defeating the Congress. Or should I say, they have persuaded their allies in the House to do their dirty work for them (as the cartoon above notes).
As a vet, I want to thank the Congress for their tireless effort in bringing defeat to our courageous troops. For without their help, victory just might have been around the corner. Now it is lost forever. Regardless as to whether this becomes law and timelines take place, our strength and power in the world has been smashed once again, as it was with Vietnam.
THANK YOU CONGRESS FOR YOUR TREMENDOUS EFFORT IN DEFEATING OUR TROOPS
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Seems that it is OK for the DEMOCRAPS to block out news organizations when it comes to debates. But when the shoe is on the other foot...LISTEN TO THEM SCREAM.
CNN BARS CANDIDATE FROM DEBATE, CENSORSHIP CHARGED
Wed Mar 14 2007 16:41:53 E
THe spoke at the DNC winter meeting standing next to Howard Dean and was at the Nevada candidate's forum with Hillary Clinton, Edwards and the others and he's been invited to ABC's debates, but CNN has barred former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel from their New Hampshire debate, without giving a reason.
Gravel is to put out this press release tomorrow: CNN AND LOCAL NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDIA IMPOSE CENSORSHIP AND TRASH FAIRNESS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.
March 15, 2007 - Washington, D.C. – CNN, the Manchester Union Leader and the Hearst-owned WMUR-TV have formally decided to exclude Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Mike Gravel from the debates they will be sponsoring in New Hampshire.
This decision calls into question media censorship and goes against a fundamental American belief in “Fairness,” which is especially critical in the political process.
The Senator said, “By denying me the same opportunity afforded to other presidential candidates to discuss in public debate the major issues that confront our nation, the sponsoring media outlets––CNN, The Manchester Union Leader and the Hearst-owned WMUR-TV––are exercising censorship, unbecoming in a free society. They are dictating whose political voice they will permit New Hampshire and American citizens to hear.”
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Now they want to stand up in front of the world and their constituents and proclaim how outraged they are about how our brave soldiers returning for care are being taken care of. One must think that we are blind to this issue. To think that these "elected" officials are totally without fault and that it all can be blamed on the administration is ludacris. Yes the administration has a part to play in this fiasco, but so do these self-righteous bimbonic money suckers who are up there in D.C.
If they have paid so much attention to the soldiers returning for care at Walter Reed and other facilities they SHOULD have been taking notice of their conditions. Yet, by saying nothing until it comes out in the newspaper shows me that they were more than willing to accept these hospital conditions. If they are just now waking up to the fact that some of these hospitals are below standards, where the hell have they been for the last 15 years?
It is easy to stand on the sidelines, as many elected officials do, and criticize how things are done or not done. But I guess the one thing they don't understand is that THEY are the ones responsible for these conditions. With all of their PORK that is attached to these bills so they can have a road paved with their name on it is now coming back to bite them in their butts. Is it possible that the American people are so stupid to think that all of the billions of dollars that are mark for the military actually goes to the military? Billions of dollars have been re-routed out of these bills for funding to make them look good back in their home states. Repairs for hospitals and equipment has been squandered by our elected officials. Billions of dollars have been redirected, or bills have died on the floor because they couldn't agree on which amendment would best serve their purpose. Now they want to place all the blame on others.
Of all the Senate oversight committees, and House sub-committees, they want us to believe that they simply had no knowledge of these conditions. I say they weren't doing their jobs. They have been so hell bent on trashing the administration and each other for so long that these things have gone unnoticed under the radar. This does not take blame away from the hospital administrators either. It is their job to make sure that these soldiers have the best recovery conditions possible, after all they have sacrificed much for everyone else. But we all know WHO CONTROLS THE MONEY, that is the CONGRESS of The United States of America. So stand up you cowardly SOB's and take the tongue lashing that you deserve.
Both parties need to be cleaned out of office and get someone in there that is willing to do the job that they were hired to do. It amazes me that we, as a country, have lasted as long as we have with all the throat cutting that goes on in politics. You are hired by the people to do a job, I would suggest that you start doing it or get the H*&% out of office. As a veteran, I am appalled by your ignorance. I have no more than a high school education, but a world of life experience; and even I can see how blind and greedy you, as our elected officials, are.
So, if you want to point fingers and place blame, I would suggest that you go look in the mirror. Remember this though, for every finger you point at someone else, there are three pointing back at you. I am sorry for some of the language utilized in this post. It is not a norm as to how I address things. But the ignorance of these officials has me stirred in twelve different directions of anger, and again I apologise.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Charles Krauthammer has hit the nail on the head in his article today concerning the Libby case. Ain't it amazing how you can get away with things if your last name starts with ..."C".
A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 9, 2007; Page A21
There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.
Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
What the democrats don’t understand or haven’t up to this point, is that the Vietnam War wasn’t their finest hour. In the last election the Democrats ran as an antiwar party and promised to bring the war to a close. However, now that they’ve gained a majority in both houses, they’re at a loss as to what to do now. The Democrats have insisted that they want to make sure that this is still President Bush’s war, and not theirs. Therefore they have pretty much had a hands off policy of the war, but the only way to end the war is to take possession of it. A point in which most of the democratic base thinks that would be fine, however someone in the Democratic leadership understands that this might be a problem.
The Democratic Party is incapable of escaping the myths of the Vietnam War that they have nurtured for decades. All that seems to matter is proving that the Iraq War not only has been lost, but that must be lost; or their Vietnam worldview would be invalidated. The Democratic Party wants us out of Iraq, yet the same time they have failed to acknowledge what kind of an impact our withdrawal would have on the country and in that region. Senator Edward Kennedy ridiculed the notion that a withdrawal from Iraq would have great humanitarian costs.
“I heard the same kind of suggestions at the time of the end of the Vietnam war,” Kennedy told NBC’s Tim Russert, mocking the notion that we’d have a “great blood bath” with more than 100,000 dead. “And for those of us that were strongly opposed to that war, we heard those same kinds of arguments.” The problem is those arguments were right, over half a million Vietnamese died trying to flee the grand peace Kennedy and his colleagues had orchestrated. More than 1.2 million Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, thanks to the power vacuum created by our humanitarian withdrawal.
Senator Chris Dodd, a presidential candidate, insists that our withdrawal from Iraq would not make anything worse than it is right now. However, in 1975 he took the same stance by stating “The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.”
The cost of defeat in Vietnam was more than just humanitarian. America’s loss to a comparatively weaker nation arguably prolonged the cold war; and has long served as an emboldening example to our enemies to believe Uncle Sam has a glass jaw. Our enemies have cried out: “American people, your government is leading you to a new losing war; your government was defeated in Vietnam and fled scared from Lebanon, and Somalia.” Their line of thought is that if they stay the course long enough, we will tuck our tails and leave.
If President Bush’s surge is successful, chances are Americans will think that it was all worthwhile. On the other hand if the Democrats are successful at ending the war in defeat, it’s not at all clear that Americans will see the triumph Kennedy remembers in Vietnam. Nor is it clear that they will congratulate the Democratic Party for securing sure defeat rather than chancing victory.
Is there a way out of Iraq? What is that way? Can victory really be declared in Iraq? That really depends upon what this Congress will do in the coming months. Will they choke our military by cutting off funds? Will they set a deadline to have all of our troops withdrawn from Iraq? If they do, how will our Allies be able to trust us in future conflicts, as we have established ourselves as not wanting to finish what we start? Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered or thought about before the Democrats decide to do whatever they are going to do. One thing is certain though, to save face and have a shot at retaining both houses of the Coongress and maybe the Presidency, they will need to claim the war as their own (in part or as a whole). For it took their votes in 2002 to make it happen.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Yet, the Hilldabeast has tried to go southern on ya. Jus (sic) listen to this clip and tell me if ya think that this here sounds like her. I know where she is from and what her accent should sound like. However, after a person has relocated and moved away from the everyday contact with people of the same background, one tends to loose a big part of that accent. Being from a southern state, one that is well known for their southern accent, I find this to be somewhat offensive for the Hilldabeast to belittle my natural accent and to an extent over work the accent that she was trying to impress people with.
Friday, March 02, 2007
An interesting post on the Huffingtonpost.com appeared today. And amazingly it or they (Democratic Base) continue to slam each other like they were at the main event of the WWE. The article/post pertains to the vicious attacks on Al Gore and his mystery myth called “An Inconvenient Truth” about global warming, which won a couple of moon-bat awards this last weekend. Their main cry of foul was for the a small unknown organization with a $100,000 budget that issued a press release containing a “smear” on Poor Al Gore, and then have it echoed around the world within hours.
Who was this insignificant organization that has the whole democratic base in an uproar? Surprise, it was The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, from Mr Gore's own home state. Not long after Gore won his lavished moon-bat awards, the TCPR came out with a few minor flaws in the way that “Mr. Environment” actually lives. It was this group that pointed out to America that the lefts star player on the environment was actually an energy hog. The TCRP pointed out that Gore was consuming up to twenty times the normal amount of electricity for his Nashville home than the average American home. Yet they have tried to explain it away with, “he has evened it out with carbon credits”.
The post points out how unprepared the left is to fight back when such “facts” are divulged on the public. These facts have yet to be reputed by the left. The post goes on to explain how many of their “leaders” have been destroyed by the “other side” listing such notables as Max Cleland, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (Bill & Hillary), Obama, Edwards and Kerry.
It would seem that the writers, Dave Johnson and James Boyce, are more upset at the Democratic Base than they are with the people that released the information. Maybe it is because, as with most of their leaders, they are grasping at straws and hoping they can build a strong structure to surround them. Could it be that they would like to wrap themselves in falsehoods and make believe? The left wishes to impose their junk on everyone else with their own “facts” (most of which has been debunked), but can not handle facts about Al “I am greener than you” Gore.
Dave and James, you can complain about many things, but you can not dispute the facts when they are laid on in front of you. Your party just has a problem with over riding facts about some of your “leaders”. They must “walk the walk, if they are going to talk the talk”.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
As I have mentioned on various occasions, my son-in-law is in Africa. He has served in Desert Storm, OIF and now in Africa working with USAID. Anytime that I can get direct info on him or his mission I will post it. Although he is not in Iraq, that does not lessen his mission. Considering the fact that he is in Sudan on a daily basis, an area that is still a hot bed, he still faces some hostility. His name is Capt. Scott Hagerty, in the article from CJTF they have misspelled his name. May not be top of the line news, but it is family.
Story by U.S. Army Maj. Greg Tzucanow Bravo Company, 413th Civil Affairs
Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa
LIRE DISTRICT, Uganda - Sporadic but heavy rain threatened to make an already challenging day more challenging when U.S. military personnel assisted U.S. Agency for International Development in the Lira district of Uganda in early December.
The soldiers traveled along the muddy roads that intersect farms, jungle and forest to designated small towns to conduct inspections on current and future water well projects. These projects support a population returning after being displaced by years of war between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Ugandan People’s Defense Force.
Internally displaced persons will soon return to towns designated by the Ugandan government. This is a planned return to normal life for more than two million people affected by the 20-year conflict. That plan includes accessing and preparing chosen sites for the residents’ return.
“For the towns to survive, they have to have clean and sufficient sources of water” explains U.S. Army Sgt. Somchai Knorr. “We assist USAID by reporting the conditions of existing well sites, inspecting proposed sites, talking with the villagers and then providing accurate assessments on the attitudes of the population”.
Participating in the projects and providing the assessments hasn’t been easy for the teams.
“Usually we are on the road early at about 7 a.m. and stay out until 6 pm. We encounter the usual amount of snakes and wild life around the borehole sites, poor road conditions, inclement weather and very curious onlookers,” said U.S. Army Capt. Scott Hagerty. “In the past week we have had to dig our vehicles out of numerous mud holes and deal with broken down vehicles, but that is nothing compared to what the men, women and children go through in the IDP camps.”
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
With all the doom and gloom coming from the MSM in regards to the War in Iraq, one has to spend a lot of time on the internet to find anything positive in regards to the war. That is unless you go to the Defense Department Sites or millitary sites. However, Lance Thompson at The New Media Journal.us has come out with a very vigerous and to the point column pertaining to our troops and their mission.
His emphasis in this article is straight forward and one of the most inspiring that I have heard coming out of a "news" agency, be it large or small, outside of the government sites. Please take a moment and read what freelance writer Lance Thompson has to say.
Journalists and politicians against the war are always eager to report the latest dismal news from Iraq and just as reluctant to publicize progress. This is not objectivity--it is a bias that alters the perception of the war effort. A situation in which our own press and politicians purposely emphasize the enemy’s triumphs and our failures is one that gives our adversaries tremendous advantage. In the past few months, they have purposely downplayed a series of events that shows we are making progress in Iraq.
In the first week of January, an American AC-130 attacked al Qaeda operatives in Somalia. Targeted individuals included Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, bomber of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. With strong cooperation from the Ethiopian military, and Kenya sealing its Somalian border, our forces are systematically cornering and killing al Qaeda terrorists in Somalia.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
But the sky is not falling. Greenspan made what I consider a very irresponsible comment early on and this also seemed to escalate the plunge. However, on the up side, all economic tables are still in place to enable our economy to continue growing. Don't jump ship just yet. Mark my words the stock market will rebound, it may not be to the same level as before the plunge; but all is still well in the good ol' US of A.
Then there was the dysfunctional attempt to assassinate VP Cheney in Afghanistan yesterday.
In the mean time though, it seems that the Democrats are still struggling to find themselves. Things went very smooth for the Democrats in Congress during their first 100 hours. However, that is because they didn't allow the Republican party to make any noise. They shut them out. Then they turned around and said that they are going to run a more open and transparent congress. Maybe they need to get the paint remover out. For it is still the same as it was during the 100 hours of milking the Democrats did. No amendments on whether or not to agree with the presidents "surge", their excuse was," it might cloud the discussion". When this did not pass in the Senate, Pelosi and Murtha teamed up with an attempt to choke the president and "his" war by putting so many exceptions or restrictions onto the funds needed, that it would basically make our troops inoperative in combat situations. This to has gone by the wayside due to the lack of unification in the Democratic Party, and their inability to get any Republicans to cross over. Now they are is serious Perl of loosing the majority in the Senate if Lieberman (I) decides to cross the aisle and start siding with the Republicans. This would be a serious blow to the nose in the air Democrats. Then there is the attempt to rewrite the U.S. mission in Iraq by repealing the earlier stamp of approval by the Congress for the war. The truth of the matter is, the Democrats do not want to have any claim on the war in Iraq, win or loose. They want this to be a purely Republican issue, even though it took a lot of Democrats to authorize this war.
Then there is the dysfunction between the Democratic Presidential candidates. Obama and Hillary, Edwards and the rest of the world, Dodd on follow the leader. Especially with Hillary coming out early and stating that "Bill is off limits". Sorry your majesty, but Bill is fair game as your cronies proved when they started, or tried to hog tie Cheney in the last election by bringing in his daughter into the debates. Then you have Geffen making remarks about the Clinton's, and then Queen Hillary demanding that Obama distance himself from Geffen for his remarks. Yet, this same person (Geffen) made the Clintons millions in donations during his races and her last run at the Senate, they didn't mind him making comments then.
Things don't look much better on the Republican side either. McCain's run is on a down hill slide and making certain remarks about Roe v. Wade, the environment, and remarks about former Sec. of Defense Rumsfield, just to name a few. Then there is Romney trying to decide which side he is actually on concerning many issues. With just about a year to go before front runners for both parties will be identified, it could be a wild ride. Giuliani, at this point in time seems to be the lead runner for the Republicans. Could it come down to a Hillary v Rudy contest in 2008? Jumpin politics Batman...could it get any better?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Well, it would appear for the moment, that Murtha has stepped on it again. On trying to go it alone, he has turned both the wrath of the republicans and some of his own party against him, and outraged many from the democratic base. Click on main title to go to story.
This is just another demonstration of the divides that continue to grow amoungst the Democrats in Congress. Their failure to coordinate between themselves makes it so easy for the Republicans to snipe them and their plans. Many of their base continue to undercut those in the Democratric party. Evidence of this is greatly observed by checking out some of the liberal bolg and web sites.
But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.
"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.
More on the Story
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Rep. Murtha has been against this war in Iraq since 2004, and has made every effort to cut the legs out from under our troops and the administrations war plans. His comments and remarks regarding the troops have fallen just short of treason and in the eyes of many troops in the field has become a discredit to the Marine Uniform, which he once wore. Many call Murtha a “hero”, a word that was used on a frequent basis during the John Kerry run for the White House in 2004. A phrase that was later proven to be a pure fiction, and an alteration of the real facts.
Murtha himself has come under fire on more than one occasion. His part in the Abscam, which was somewhat cleared, his convicting troops in Iraq before an investigation was completed, simply by taking what was printed in a magazine as truth; his own admission to another political friend regarding his own medals from Vietnam have been questioned. Yet Murtha has refused to produce any documentation to verify how he received them.
His cut and run tactics over the last three years have cost many troops their lives and has emboldened the enemy. Mr. Murtha has stated on several occassions that the troops went in unprepared, untrained and poorly equipped. Yet he has served on the Appropriations committee from the beginning of this conflict, and in fact voted in favor of going to Iraq. If he had been doing his job corretly, especially as a former military officer, he would have or should have been able to procure the proper training and equipment. But he, and the Democratic party have continously tried to cut the military legs out from under them.
Now Murtha, along with Pelosie and fellow cut and run democrats, will try to use his committee power to ensure that our troops fail. Murtha has asserted that "the US Army is broken, worn out and living hand to mouth". Yet, Military officers have a different outlook on our troops than Murtha. Shortly after Murtha muttered these words, Col. Joseph Curtin stated, “ The Army is not broken, every day, our soldiers are making tremendous contributions in Iraq, in Afghanistan and more than 120 countries around the world. Retention rates are at an incredibly all-time high, particularly in the active component."
Murtha has elaborated that, “80% of the Iraqis want us out of there (bogus poll numbers), and 47% say it is OK to kill Americans…” Truth of the matter is there is only about 29% that want the US to leave NOW, 80% do want the US to leave but not until they are able to stand on their own, and only 8% think that the foreign forces are the reason for the country going in the wrong direction. More of Murtha’s comments that I consider to embolden the enemy are, “We can’t win this.” “We are causing the problem.” (Congressional Record, June 15, 2006, p. H4028) “American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to the world peace than nuclear threats from N. Korea or Iran.” (June 24, 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel) However, Murtha stated in his own book, From Vietnam to 9/11, where Murtha advocates that the U.S. should not pull out of Iraq prematurely or create a timetable. “An untimely exit (from Iraq) could rapidly dissolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but its perseverance.”
I know not what Murtha thought of the quick withdraw from Vietnam, or how it affected the military and the US as a whole. But for a former military officer, especially a Marine Colonel, to stand up and presume to speak for the troops in the field is ludicrous. Many of the troops on the ground totally disagree with Murtha. In fact they feel that Murtha, regardless of his military record, should simply go away. His continual ranting does nothing short of telling our enemies we can not succeed and you might as well come on in and take over the country,
As far as Murtha being a spokesperson for the military, here a just a few comment made by some of those same soldiers he said “… could not speak for themselves…”. Iraq War Veteran Craig Minnick stated "I have called time and time again to Congressman Murtha's office and they have refused to listen to me, even though I am one of Rep. Murtha's constituents,…” SGT Mark Russak tagged in with the following comments, “I have written two letters about John Murtha (both published in several newspapers) and sent to his office in Johnstown, Pa. I even visited his office while on R&R Leave in January 06 to ask him to stop the lies about our mission but his Aid said he wasn't in. I never heard one word from him and to my knowledge neither did any one in our Task Force”. I think that this pretty much sums up his authority as a spokesperson.
If Murtha is allowed to go his way, our troops will never be able to hold their heads up. It will forever be in their minds that they could have finished the job, but were not given the chance by our politicians (a terrible ring back to the Congress during the Vietnam War). Congress was never established to manage wars. That privilege was granted to the DOD and the President.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Well, it seems as though the democrats are wasting no time for a countermeasure against the resolution to protest against President Bush’s escalation of troops in Iraq. It would seem that before the vote was even taken on Saturday, many democrats were already discussing the possibility of limiting President Bush’s power over the war in Iraq. According to most major news sources Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that a bipartisan senate proposal is in the works to “modify” the “wide open” 2002 congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Levin added, that such a modification could stop the president from continuing on a failing course.
Senator Levin stated, “We will be looking at a modification of the authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of combat mission, and it is very different from cutting off funds.“ This is pretty much follows in step with what senator Murtha was stating earlier in the week, only Murtha was in favor of reducing funding for the war and a reduction of forces, this resolution calls for limiting the addition of more troops, without Congressional approval.
This move could very well be the first time in congressional history where Congress has determined that they can micromanage the war better than the president, or those within his administration.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that he “could guarantee that in future debates on Iraq, senate republicans are going to want to vote on funding the troops . “ A move to cut off funds by the democrats for the war and for the troops in Iraq is less favored in the polls by the public. Recent polls show that 63% of adults opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, and 68% also opposed efforts by Congress to cut off all war funding. A move to restrict the president’s war powers, is seen as more politically expedient ground for republicans.
Senator Chuck Hagel, was amongst the republicans who voted in favor of debating the Iraq resolution Saturday. “What this debate is about right now is the continuation of an escalation of American military involvement in Iraq, putting young men and women in the middle of a sectarian and intra-sectarian Civil war, “ Hagel told “Meet the Press. “
According to Fox News, Hillary Clinton plans on introducing the resolution on the floor of the senate this next week to end the war or bring home the troops within 90 days. Although Clinton knows that she probably will not have the votes to carry this motion, it is believed that she is making this motion to strengthen her base showing that she against the war in Iraq. Most of the democratic base knows that Clinton has not apologized for her vote in favor of the war and probably will not, and is hoping that this will appease the democratic base showing that she has a strong stand against the war. Earlier this year at a democratic meeting Hillary made the statement that if she were president she would end the war now; and has also made the statement that if she was the president and 2002 she would not have went to war with Iraq, knowing what she knows now. Yet Hillary voted in favor of every measure placed on the floor during that time.
For those of those that were around during the sixties and early seventies during the Vietnam War, we know how that war ended. Then, as it is now, the battles are being won by the troops and lost on the home front because of Congress, the radical antiwar movement, and the far left mainstream media. I for one know that this is not what the troops in the field were hoping for, because it shows a great lack of support by our Congress, whose main purpose it is, or should be, during war is to support the troops. It would seem that the number two man in Al-Qaida was right. Americans do not have the guts to hold the course when American blood is being shed. “Make them bleed and they will leave.”
Please do not get me wrong, I support our troops in harm’s way and I support their mission (which obviously Congress does not). I weep for each and every soldier that has fallen on the field of battle and for those thousands of that had been maimed in one way or another from injuries suffered during battle. It is just that I believe they deserve so much more from the Congress the United States of America than they are receiving.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Well, it would seem that all the great minds, both politically and militarily just need to close their doors hang up a “for rent” sign on them and go home. There intellect and professional thoughts are no longer needed as guidelines for the course America should take. At least that is what one writer to Senator Robert Byrd thinks.
Senator Byrd received open letter from Mohamed Khodr a muslim, freelance writer for Media Monitoring, which by itself wouldn't seem too strange. What does strike me as curious is the fact that Senator Byrd has been associated with the KKK and therefore as a member of such an organization, is against all “non-white” groups. He has made this very clear from years past. Yet, Mr Khodr, a muslim, seems to think that Sen. "KKK" Byrd is his savior and champion. However, back to the letter.
Mr. Khodr throws mountains of flowers to Sen. Byrd in his letters. Acknowledging on several occasions how Byrd is a stand up senator for the minority population around the world. Khodr goes on in his letter to educate everyone that the whole reason behind going to war in Iraq and the threats of war in Iran are solely based on the State of Israel and our support for it. An area, in which Senator Byrd has been very outspoken, against Israel.
Khodr continued by stating that “Israel threatens the MidEast with a nuclear holocaust; not Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, or Hamas.” Khodr goes on to explain how Israel is the primary force behind Bush’s push for war with Iran. After all he states, “It will be America’s youth who’ll die, not Israeli’s, Cheney’s, Bush’s, Rice’s, Bolton’s, Foxman’s, or our media elite.”
Now not to be just a criticizer, Khodr joyfully offers up some “solutions”, sort of. Again he goes back to Israel as the primary force behind MidEast strife, by stating that the one’s who are preventing Bush from carrying on diplomatic courses with these nations is the Israel. Khodr goes on to illuminate Sen. Byrd even more by remarking, “Only you, Sir, Who’s ever had the courage to speak about our incredible aid to Israel, one of the nations richest nations, being secure in your position and history, can courageously address this on the Senate Floor. America loves you and will wholeheartedly support you…”
In light of the defeat suffered by the Democratic Senate on Saturday, and some of Senator Byrd's remarks on the floor, it would seem that Mr Khodr's remarks just might fall on deaf ears, as the Democratic Party struggles to gather in its constituants and try to move onto the next step in shutting down the Iraq War. In accordane to Senator Murtha's remarks during this last week, threatening to start cutting off funding for the troops and the war.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Between Feb. 16 - 19, U.S. Naval Forces conducted pre-landing bombardment on the island of Iwo Jima. At 08:59 on Feb. 19, 1945, 30,000 marines landed on the shores of Iwo Jima. After four days (Feb. 23) of yard by yard fighting, the Marines had pretty much cut off Mt. Suribachi from the rest of the island. Popular legend (embroidered by the press in the aftermath of the release of the now-famous photo "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima") has it that the Marines fought tooth and nail all the way up to the summit. But although the riflemen were tensed for an ambush, none materialized. They made it to the summit and scrambled down again, reporting the lack of enemy contact to Colonel Chandler Johnson.
Johnson then called for a platoon of Marines to climb Suribachi. With them, he sent a small American flag to fly if they reached the summit. Again, Marines began the ascent, expecting to be ambushed at any moment. And again, the Marines reached the top of Suribachi without incident. Using a length of pipe they found among the wreckage atop the mountain, the Marines hoisted the U.S. flag over Mount Suribachi, the first foreign flag to fly on Japanese soil in centuries.
As the flag went up, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal had just landed on the beach at the foot of Mt. Suribachi. He decided that he wanted the flag as a souvenir. Popular legend has it that Colonel Johnson wanted the flag for himself; in fact, he believed that the flag belonged to the 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines, who had captured that section of the island. He scrounged up a second flag, and sent that one up the volcano to replace the first. As the first flag came down, the second went up, and it was then that Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal took the famous photograph "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" of the replacement flag being planted on the mountain's summit.
In 36 days of fighting there were 25,851 US casualties. Of these, 6,825 Americans were killed. Virtually all 21,000 Japanese perished with only 214 surrendering.
Pictures courtesy of: FIRST FLAG ON SURIBACHI - THE IWO JIMA FLAG RAISING
Another interesting article on the web regarding the first flag is found at http://carol_fus.tripod.com/marines_hero_ray_jacobs.html . This article gives a very descriptive account of the flag raising.
Other Links on Iwo Jima:
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
It amazes me that the press, both written and on TV, are devoting so much time to this issue. It amazes me even more knowing that not much time is devoted to what our troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I am not talking about the conflicts, loss of life or equipment being blown up; I’m talking about the good things that they are doing for the countries that they’re in. Little to no coverage given regarding the rebuilding of the school’s, hospitals and yes the towns and cities themselves. The only time we see anything about the troops is if there is a loss of life involved, scandal, rape, torture and some stupid officer thinking that he did not have to go to Iraq.
Getting back to Anna Nicole Smith, it is time to move on. Enough is enough. I’m sorry that the lady is dead, I know that she has suffered quite a bit over the last few months, but to devote this much time and coverage on one person of such a low stature simply baffles me. The way she is covered in the press one would come to the conclusion that she was some sort of a high dignitary figure such as a president or a leading figure from another country.
If the press really wants to cover individuals on an individual basis, let’s start covering the individual soldier that puts his life on the line every day so that we may sit back and are cozy little chairs and complained to the world how bad we are. Why not pick out soldiers at random and get their story, where they’re from, who their family is and whether or not they think they are doing the right thing in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or maybe even run special coverage on the families of the soldiers that are defending our nation. Anna Nicole Smith has had her ten years in the press; which is nine years, eleven months, 29 days, 23 hours and 45 minutes more than the average person. Let’s get back to the reporting the new, not some gossip magazine coverage. OK, I’m through with my ranting now, let’s get back to the more important things going on. I just had to vent it.
As posted by fellow blogger and friend ,Griz, at God Bless America, many of our troops are able to communicate with their families and loved ones through a new program that allows fathers and mothers of the loved ones left behind, the ability to read books to them via a recording. This program, from my understanding, is in place at the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.
Now a New York firm is providing 24 HR web based live video and conferencing services free to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else in the world, to help them keep in touch with their families back home.
The program known as Video Furlough, was introduced just before Christmas by Instant -stream Multimedia Communications. Basically what this program does is it allows soldier to be involved with his family via video conferencing. The cost is only a couple of cents per minute and is paid for by the company offering the video conferencing.
Michael J. Daly, chief executive officer at Instantstream offers up this technology to our troops and will even setup a $500.00 account for the users, as long as they are military personnel using this procedure to communicate with their families at home. For more on this new technology, please read following article and pass it along to all the military families and soldiers that you have contact with through your blogs or personal contact.
Being a vet and having a son-in-law in harms way, I know it is very important for both the soldier and the family back home to know that everything is fine and well on both sides of the globe.
Members of Congress quietly have been calling federal agencies demanding their pet projects still be funded weeks after they swore off pork-barrel spending, the Bush administration says.
In response, administration officials have signaled they ignore many of those requests -- a move that thrills fiscal conservatives who have called on the president to take that step. But it's likely to irk congressional spending committees because it may threaten 95 percent of pork-spending projects, or "earmarks."
"Some of your offices have begun to receive requests from some congressional offices asking that the department continue to fund programs or activities that received earmarked funds in prior years," the Department of Energy's chief of staff, Jeffrey Kupfer, wrote in a Feb. 2 internal memo. A check by The Washington Times of other agencies turned up similar reports of phone calls -- from congressional offices of both parties.
But now, Mr. Kupfer wrote, they will no longer feel bound by earmarks and will follow through only on those "with meritorious proposals or programs that effectively support and advance the department's missions and objectives."
Monday, February 12, 2007
It is not a secret that the Democrats are trying to embarrass Bush at every turn, however, if the Republicans were allowed to present a alternative resolution many Democrats in the House just might support it. The fear is that a Republican resolution might expose the messy divide within the Democratic Party over whether to cut off or to restrict funding for troops on the ground. The Democratic Whips are reigning in their constituents and not giving them the chance to flip on the issue.
The fact of the matter is this, many rank and file members are wary of ending the funding for the mission. A good example of how the Ranking members are trying to hold things together was displayed by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Sunday’s Meet The Press. Hoyer had earlier said that the Republicans would have a chance to offer their own measures but recanted his statement over the weekend by stating that was “not necessarily” the case.
Another Democratic Rep., Ed Perlmutter, first timer said that he plans to back his party’s measure to reject the troop increase, but added he would be in favor to support a resolution committing to funding of the troops. Perlmutter added, “I don’t want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently.” Perlmutter added that the Republicans are trying to “trip us up” by proposing such a measure now, considering the fact that there is “no consensus on funding” among the Democrats.
If you wanted further proof as to how divided the Democrats are, here is what Democrat Rep. Michael Arcuri had to say, “We feel that we want to do what is best for the troops, but we have some differences in terms of how you do that.” The Republicans know that a resolution expressing a commitment to funding the troops would put the Democrats in a bind.
The Democrats ran on a platform against the war in Iraq. They also said that the need for transparency in Congress would be a primary issue when they took control. However, when asked about this their reply was this, “We’re going to run a fair House, but we are not going to be naïve about it. We’re just trying to give the American people a clear debate and a clear answer” on Iraq. Then answer me this if you would please, how can you have a clear debate and answer without having that debate? Is this more double talk coming from the Democrats? The fact is simply this, and put well by Will Marshall of the DLC, “there is broad unity on the fact that we have to start winding the occupation down, not doubling down on it, but after that, I think it’s harder to find a consensus.” In other words they have no solution to the War in Iraq, but are hell bent on trashing Bush for it, and wanting him to resolve it before 2008.
Spouse: Arlene Crandall of Kent, Washington
Drafted: U.S. Army, 1953Commissioned: Engineer Officer Candidate School, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1954Deployments: Dominican Republic Expeditionary Force; two tours of Vietnam
Aircraft: U-1 Otter fixed wing; L-20 Beaver fixed wing; L-19 Birddog fixed wing; H-23 Raven "couldn't get off the ground on a hot day"; H-13; H-19; UH-1 Huey "best helicopter ever built"
Biography: LTC (Ret.) Crandall is a veteran Master Army Aviator in both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. He led over 900 combat missions during two tours in Vietnam.
Born in 1933, Crandall grew up in Olympia, Wash., where he played baseball and became a high school All American. He was drafted into the Army in 1953.
After commissioning and graduation from fixed-wing and helicopter training conducted by the Air Force and Army, he was assigned to a mapping group based out of the Presidio of San Francisco "that at the time was the largest flying military aviation unit in the world. " From there he went to fly L-19 Birddogs and L-20 Beavers in Alaska, again for topographic studies.
Crandall's first overseas flying assignment was to Wheelus AFB in Tripoli, Libya, mapping the desert for two years flying YU-1 Otter, L-20 Beaver, L-19 Birddog and H-23 Raven aircraft as an instructor pilot and unit test pilot.
His next overseas tours were flying over thousands of square miles of previously unmapped mountains and jungles in Central and South America. For this mission, he was based out of Howard AFB, Panama, and Costa Rica. While assigned to the 11th Air Assault Division, Crandall helped develop air-assault tactics as a platoon commander. In early 1965, he joined the Dominican Republic Expeditionary Force as a liaison to the 18th Airborne Corps.
Later that year, he would command the 1st Cavalry Division's Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion at An Khe, Vietnam. Using the call sign "Ancient Serpent 6," he led a flying unit supporting eight battalions on the ground.
On Nov. 14, 1965, Crandall led the first major division operation of airmobile troops into Landing Zone X-Ray in Vietnam's Ia Drang Valley and is credited with evacuating some 70 wounded comrades with his wing man and fellow Medal of Honor recipient MAJ Ed Freeman. The two also flew in the ammunition needed for the 1/7th CAV (Custer's old battalion) to survive. The craft he was flying was unarmed.
Read the rest of the story at : http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/crandall/profile/index.html
After about a dozen trips to the doctor for these cortisone shots and gulping down at least three or four bottles of ibuprofen, the doctor finally decided that there might be something else wrong and it might not just be bursitis. So he set me up an appointment or an MRI on my shoulder. This is when they finally discovered that I had a torn rotator cuff.
I had to go in early Wednesday around 7:00 to prep for the surgery, which took place around 10:30. I had a partial tear and a complete tear along with some fluid that had built up in the rotator cuff area. I ended up staying at the hospital for almost two hours after the operation was complete trying to get my wits about me. I was told by my daughter and my wife, that it took quite awhile for me to come round. They also told me that it was quite funny watching me try to wake up. Personally, I really don’t remember much of anything.
My wife went on to work and my daughter brought me home. My daughter stated that it was quite a task getting me from the car into the house, claiming that I was bumping into just about everything in my way. I remember finally working my way to bed and pretty much collapsing and waking up about six hours later. My arm was in a sling held snug against my body so that I couldn’t move it, and the pain medication that the doctor prescribed for me pretty much get me out of things up through about Saturday. So needless to say, it was pretty hard to focus on much of anything for the better part of the weekend until the drugs and the pain finally wore off.
The doctor says that I will probably be off or out of work for about two to three months before I can go back to resuming my normal daily life. So, during this time I’ll be going to see the doctor, therapy, and pretty much sitting round watching the world go by. I guess that’s all right though, it’s not football season anyway. So I guess there’s a chance that I will be on here a little bit more often than I have in the past. Since I can’t use my left arm to type with, I purchased me one of those voice recognition programs for my computer. That’s what I am using right now. I sure hope it gets better, because right now it’s taking a long time just to get this out. I guess the more you use it, the faster it will recognize what you’re saying. Oh well, I guess I’ll have plenty of time to work the kinks out of it.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
According to Stuart Elliot, of the NY Times, the tone of this years commercials for the superbowl are "perhaps reflecting the toll of War". According to his article, Elliot cited a few of the commercials that ran during the superbowl as coming "across as cruel or callous." Some of the ads that Elliot refers to were ads for CareerBuilder, Bud Light, FedEx, Sprint, GoDaddy to name a few.
Why is it that some people think that the war has to be drawn into everything that is going on. This was a major sporting event, with no underlying war tones. It was Professional Football at it best (or worst depending on who you were cheering for). Although I will agree that some of the commercials came off flat to me, I had no idea that they were transmitting underlying thoughts of the war and those thoughts never entered my mind. Maybe Elliot should take a look at what is transpiring over the internet on sites like MySpace, or YouTube. Or maybe even taking a look at some of the shows on cable like Jack Ass, or other shows on MTV. Channels that for whatever reason, seem to appeal to the younger generation. These shows have more violence or cruelty and callouosness than any commercial I have ever seen.
Could it be because of the decay in morality in our society that some of these "underlying" tones are so easily spotted by the likes of Elliot? Could it be that this nation has drifted away from its original roots, that the MSM has or is trying to dominate our every thought and action? Personally, I opt for the second one as trying to control my thoughts and daily life. I can't answer for everyone in the US, but the way I see it is like this; the government has put its nose into almost every facit of my daily life, telling me that this is bad for my health, or that this will make me live a longer life, don't drink this, don't smoke that, don't eat this, and so forth. And the MSM is the one that is in the forefront trying to shove all this down my throat by reporting on a daily basis all the "terrible" things that are going on out there.
I mean honestly, how often on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC do you see reports of kindness, generosity or just plain old being a good neighbor. Not very often. So naturally you would think that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. When all you hear is doom and gloom, pretty soon that is the kind of mind set that you will have. I am sorry, I thought the football game was a good game, even though my team didn't play; and the commercials were not intended to "reflect" on the war. Life is a dog-eat-dog world, no matter how you cut it. And to me, that is what the ads were implying. You want to get ahead - try this product, you want to be noticed - buy this car, you want a better job - use this service. It is no different than the MSM is doing. One putting the other down so you will watch their channel more than the other, or coming up with some off the wall story to make the other look bad.
So, in closing, I just want to say...nice job Colts...sorry about that Bears...but there is always next year. That is unless the MSM implants it into your mind that the world will end before then.