Clinton, the Left and Adherence to the Agenda

From MSNBC

“Clinton picked up the endorsement of the 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers in Washington today.” (yesterday) This is a good example of people supporting those that keep them busy with work, considering all the donations that must get sent through the mail to her. That and their, semi-partial-kind of in a way-quasi governmental employment status.

With the remark to General David Petraeus at Tuesday afternoon’s hearing by candidate for President, Senator Hillary Clinton, "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," one has to wonder why the possibility or activity of suspending disbelief is something new to a Clinton.

In a nation torn by its presence in Iraq is it really the right time to so pit one side against another, especially by someone that has managed, as her husband has to suspend the disbelief of so many? When activists, clueless mind you, put President Bush down as a Fascist (this includes those of us that agree with our presence in Iraq and take the threats to our nation seriously and God forbid consider outside, rather than inside the government) their rhetoric is fully supported by the spewing of this candidate and other Leftist Democrats in her party that fail to appreciate that not all wounds can be healed.

Senator Clinton is stuck in her formative college days and appears to have no desire to depart it; especially since it works so well for the coffers. She has yearned for the office she is running toward for most, if not all of her adult life; might there be a chance she will do whatever it takes to see that dream through? This is more than can be said for the present commander in chief, yet he is some cog or leader in some imagined ultra secret coup to control the country. Bush, at the same time, back in his college days likely didn’t concern himself with so selfless a career.

Today, “disappointed Democrats map a withdrawal strategy” for Iraq as “Obama Offers Most Extensive Plan Yet for Winding Down War,” and has drawn “criticism from the left of his party for being too timid and from Republicans as being irresponsible.” Goodness, what could be more Left of those running for president than the Democrat candidates themselves at a time that does not yet require a scramble to the “center?”

One does not “wind down a war” that like most wars has a life of its own that requires reaction and adjustment as much as it does constantly fluid tactics. The Left looks to wind down to defeat or an “end (same difference),” while the inhabitants on the other side of the aisle look to ways toward success in the long war. Both sides actively pursue success; however success is viewed entirely differently, which should not require further explanation since we’ve been here since almost day one.

Back to the shining example of an almost lustful desire for the highest office in the land; Senator Clinton. Yesterday, The Times reported that “Mrs.” Clinton is facing what is described as her biggest fear or vulnerability; “Some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged;” appearing what one is, is not something the candidate cares to appear. “Mrs. Clinton told aides this year to vet major donors carefully and help her avoid situations in which she might appear to be trading access for big money.” Poor staffing selection or a cover for the micromanagement the senator is known for?

Ever since the falling of the other Hsu, the press has treaded the scandal of financing gingerly due to its chosen ones role in it; we get the stories but not the continuous in your face, please don’t forget motivation that follows the guide on of reportage on Republican scandals. Myrna Blyth wonders this morning, why “didn’t Hillary’s fundraising staff ever bother to call to thank the nice Paw family of 41 Shelbourne Avenue, Daly City, California for the almost $45,000 they donated to her presidential campaign? The Paws, big givers, have contributed over $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. Hillary has been so willing this summer, often with Bill in tow, to make house calls on fundraisers at the Vineyard or in East Hampton. Why didn’t she want to drop in to share a cup of tea and a wonton or two with such generous West Coast supporters? Maybe if she or one of her staffers had paid that courtesy call, they might have been surprised the open-handed Paws, all six of them, lived in a tiny, 1280-square-foot bungalow painted an unfortunate though appropriate shade of green.” Why indeed?

The candidates “china syndrome” is one in a laundry list of questionable activities and ties. Big money in politics is unfortunately a “necessary” evil in this day and age and it’s not nothing; but the bigger questions might be the judgment of those that toe the line of Leftist agendas that have no rosier a past than any other obsessively adhered to unquestioning dogma.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Stout Republican, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Thoughts, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Violence in Anbar has gone down Despite the Surge, NOT Because of the Surge

Senator Chuck Shill Schumer remarked on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the “Surge” in Iraq and its success to date:

“I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.”

Most would attribute the Senators “rise” to the use of Viagra, however common sense tells us this is not so. To suggest “just the opposite,” of what is actually going on in Iraq as Schumer does is to “cling to straws” when news with even the slightest hint of “good” cannot be allowed. Schumer’s remarks are nothing more than the Iraq debate reframing debate strategy the Democrats have begun prior to Petraeus and Crockers report. We’ve entered September and Harry Reid noticed yesterday that this was the case following the Dems earlier confusion on the calendar a couple months back:

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq. It’s September. The calendar hasn’t changed. It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

According to the Shill occasionally good news is allowed to slip out prior to Democrat pre-emptive measures to downplay it:

“We've heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They're cleared, they're safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

“It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.”

Many may wish after hearing these remarks that they possessed a pair of dark sunglasses like the senator as there would be no more squinting for us even while driving directly into the rising or setting sun on the horizon.

Almost as soon as Senator Reid revealed his parties recalibration of the calendar, Schumer reverted back to the Iranian Jalali which puts them in the year 1386; one that helps us understand the continuing confusion on the “surge” timeline for the party:

“Just seven or eight months ago when the President began the surge….”

“Now then, those on the other side and the president say, “Give us a chance. You're already declaring defeat.” If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there's been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.”

Chuck, “if this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006,” you would be saying, ‘2003 or 2004 or maybe even 2005.’ It is more than obvious through the senator’s words that deadlines, dates and the like do not matter as now is the time. Whatever happens in Iraq, we can rely on its not being seen or acknowledged if there is any hint of the positive. It is oh so easy to deconstruct for the sake of the negative because to actually do something one has to have what it takes; this is unfortunately something dearly lacking from the Liberal party in this country.

“So the surge—by the President's own stated goal—is failing. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off, not better off. We’re not even in the same place in Iraq today than we were six months ago.”

Now is the time for all weak men to come to the aid of their party; screw the nation and the future.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Nuke's News & Views, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Nancy “Sonny Corleone” Pelosi & the Harry Reid Death Surge

Nice short piece at NRO by Mackubin Thomas Owens, that opens with the following:

“When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, trekked to Damascus not too long ago to meet with the thug dictator of Syria, it occurred to me that she was essentially taking a page from a scene in The Godfather — the one in which Sonny dissents from a decision made by his father, Don Corleone, during a meeting with a representative of another mafia family.”

Suffice it to say, Sonny’s meeting with the opposing crime family led to the attempted assassination of the Don. The opposing family’s belief was that were Sonny in charge business between the two would be much easier.

Owens is making the comparison between Pelosi and Reid and their comments or actions with those of the “insurgency” in Iraq. Knowing that winning in Iraq is more based upon how, we at home view the effort they seek to slaughter as many innocents as possible so that our backing for that theater is extinguished.

When comparing rhetoric, it strikes me as very fitting that Mr. Reid et al can be assumed or honored with the ugly violence that up ticks with each defeatist statement that dribbles from their mouths.

Middle Eastern media reaction to Pelosi’s Damascus trip and Reids latest comments certainly do reflect effects of their actions and statements:

“America’s enemies in the Middle East certainly took note of Pelosi’s trip: the Arab press was full of favorable reports of the Speaker’s pilgrimage to Damascus. The Middle Eastern press has also, not surprisingly, taken note of Reid’s comments (which he tried to take back later in the day). So in addition to feeding defeatism in the United States and demoralizing the troops who are in Iraq (or soon to be on their way there), Reid has most likely encouraged our enemies in that unhappy place.”

With each message spoken or sent by the president, the numerous statements meant to weaken the president at home serves to strengthen the hand of those against us in Iraq. If it doesn’t strengthen the enemy it, at the least motivates it to do more of the same violent acts as to illustrate the Democrat’s lost cause, gloom and doom scenarios.

Reid and his friends should not believe for a moment that their words and actions do not play a role in this battlefield; pro or con.

“We know what the Bush surge is. I think a good name for the increasing body count in Iraq is the “Reid surge.”

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -