On Taxing Wall Street Bonuses

The image above is priceless; only thing missing is the blood on the fangs!

Speaker of the House:

"We must also protect the American taxpayer from executives who would use their companies' second chances as opportunities for private gain."

Question:

Who protects us from them?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

A. C.O.R.N. Fed

"The blame game needs to end, and we need to move forward on doing what's right for our country."

-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

"If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire."

-Mona Charen

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Clinton, Byrd, Pelosi and Reid - We Give Up!

I’m still somewhat miffed by this callous opinion “piece” written by the illustrious Senators Clinton and Byrd. Last night I did not speak so much to what they said ‘in their polled opinion,’ rather it was more a reaction. It sickened me that their inability to deal with day to day changing realities of the Iraq theater in the greater war on terror is someone else's fault. Iraq changed the moment someone considered doing something other than the status quo or sanctions, no fly zones and the rest. It changed the moment the media made mention of it, long before the U.S. entered Iraq.

The senators sent President Bush an interesting challenge:

“If the Bush administration believes that the current war, as it is being executed, is critical to America's future, then it should make the case and let the people decide. Explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions. Explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight.”

Odd that the president has all the explaining to do, when no one (and this is nothing new) from the anti-war side of the argument feels the need to explain what happens next?

This morning, Ralph Peters makes a stab at it for the consistent Democrat party; consistent in support of “our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.”

Peters this morning:

“So I'll tell you what happens: massacres. And while I have nothing against Shia militiamen and Sunni insurgents killing each other 24/7, the overwhelming number of victims will be innocent women, children and the elderly.”

“Bosnia? That was just rough-necking at recess compared to what Islamist fanatics and ethnic beasts will do. Given that Senate Majority Misleader Harry Reid and Commissar of the House Nancy Pelosi won't tell us what they foresee after we quit, let me lay it out”

And lay it out he does. This is suggested reading and suggested that everyone that cares about the damage the “leadership” is doing to our nation get this, “THE ‘QUIT IRAQ’ CAUCUS: Recipe for Massacre” out there and everywhere.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6521232831365751941

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Thoughts, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Anti-war Rising Tide: Peace in our Time

Call me stupid or just a Conservative/Republican/Bush Lapdog/war monger/chickenhawk..….whatever witty title in your disgust and anger makes you happier. As much as many in the media and anti-war faction of this country are concerned, as E.J. Dionne said this morning; the president by:

“insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by the day.”

The “conflict” no doubt is Iraq, which I have heard distracted us from the “war on terror,” and “only creates more jihadis,” to name just two. How exactly it is more “unpopular by the day” is where I get lost or concerned. Undoubtedly unpopular to many, yet by what means does someone like Dionne use to arrive at this conclusion? Does he rely upon the media reportage? Does he rely upon polling? Does he rely upon speeches by say, Sean Penn and take this as representative of the majority of Americans? Since when have our elected officials really done what we want anyway? Does he rely upon statements by the likes of Nancy Pelosi following November’s election:

"Nowhere did the American people make it more clear that we need a new direction than in the war in Iraq."

If so, how exactly does she know? Is it because the majority changed and with the change does this then mean whatever she/they say is the “mandate,” is the “mandate?” But what if that isn’t truly how people feel? Does Pelosi rely of the orations of Sean Penn too?

Dionne sees the 218 to 212 vote as:

“a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse membership behind a plan pointing the United States out of Iraq.”

Does E.J. really believe the Democrats are truly ideologically diverse or do you think he’s talking from a visual angle? Dionne sees this as a good indicator that Pelosi will be able to put up a good fight in making “a new direction,” a reality. Yet also must place a certain amount of the blame of Bush for his recent Saturday radio address in which the president used:

“harsh rhetoric against the House version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory.”

I certainly hope he has noticed “harsh rhetoric” from both sides of the aisle although I have my doubts as he notices that Democrats did not splinter as “pro-Bush” people would have liked, but:

“Instead, antiwar Democrats, including Web-based groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate colleagues.”

I don’t think he would refer to Conservative web-based groups as just web-based groups. In addition to the “common interest” discovery Dionne does mention the term “pork,” but only in so much as that is politics as usual; something I thought Nancy et al were against. Nothing new here, but swaying “moderate colleagues” becomes easier with Congressional additives and incentives:

• $500 million for emergency wildfires suppression; the Forest Service currently has $831 million for this purpose;
• $400 million for rural schools;
• $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program;
• $120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries;
• $100 million for citrus assistance;
• $74 million for peanut storage costs;
• $60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and Oregon;
• $50 million for asbestos mitigation at the U.S. Capitol Plant;
• $48 million in salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency;
• $35 million for NASA risk mitigation projects in Gulf Coast;
• $25 million for spinach growers;
• $25 million for livestock;
• $20 million for Emergency Conservation Program for farmland damaged by freezing temperatures;
• $16 million for security upgrades to House of Representatives office buildings;
• $10 million for the International Boundary and Water Commission for the Rio Grande Flood Control System Rehabilitation project;
• $6.4 million for House of Representative’s Salaries and Expenses Account for business continuity and disaster recovery expenses;
• $5 million for losses suffered by aquaculture businesses including breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish as a result of viral hemorrhagic septicemia;
• $4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration; and a minimum wage increase, which is the subject of separate legislation.

From the Senate side of the meat processing (includes only the most egregious):

• $1.5 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers for recovery along the coast, including funding for Hawaii for an April 2006 flood;
• $850 million for Department of Homeland Security grants ($625M for rail/transit grants, $190M for port security grants, and $35M for urban area security grants);
• $660 million for the procurement of an explosives detection system for the Transportation Security Administration;
• $640 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
• $425 million for education grants for rural areas;
• $388.9 million for a backlog of Department of Transportation projects;
• $165.9 million (including $60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath Basin region) for fisheries disaster relief;
• $100 million for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions;
• $95 million for dairy producers;
• $75 million for salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency;
• $48 million in disaster construction money for NASA;
• $25 million for grants through the Safe and Drug Free Schools program;
• $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Power Plant;
• $24 million to sugar beet producers;
• $22.8 million for geothermal research and development;
• $20 million for reimbursements to Nevada for “insect damage;”
• $13 for "ewe replacement and retention;"
• $12 million for Forest Service money requested by the president in the non-emergency FY2008 budget
• $3.5 million for guided tours of the Capitol;
• $3 million for sugar cane; and
• Allows the transfer of funds from holiday ornament sales in the Senate gift shop.

Following the “anti-war tide rising” vote Speaker Pelosi said:

"I stand here with great pride on this historic day in the Congress of the United States. Proudly, this new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq."

That is indeed quite an accomplishment, something the president has been unable to do to date; all with only a victorious vote. But what is “an end?”

John Murtha “emotionally” stated:

"We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country."

I wish he had mentioned what direction.

Is home the new agreed upon location for the redeployment of the military in the Middle East? It certainly would seem that bringing them all home would be appropriate with the “end to the war in Iraq.”

I guess the rising anti-war tide that Dionne avers to is none other than the same group in D.C. that has been against it for so long now. I don’t know that it’s rising but it certainly is more dramatic and fun to get people to see it that way even if it’s just politics as usual.

I believe the Democrats are going to be more successful than they intended in guaranteeing “the end is near.”

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1321143198622846196

Senate Restarts..restarts...restarts Iraq Debate debate

According to this morning’s Washington Post:

“The Senate voted decisively today to allow debate on a resolution against the war in Iraq to go forward…”

As there were only 9 no votes to let the debate proceed, Republicans nonetheless can still do their part to prevent its passage. Regarding the vote for debate:

“Democrats nevertheless celebrated today's procedural vote as a step toward ending the role of U.S. combat troops in Iraq…”

This is cute because they can say and feel with a straight face that they are never wrong. If our engagement in Iraq were to go on another 20 years perhaps Democrats would hark back to this day, March 13, 2007 as the turning point in the “Iraq debacle.” It’s also a fine example of rhetoric that sounds and speaks impressively, but is a turd just the same.

Russell D (Dingleberry) Feingold (D-WI) said of the procedural vote to debate (meddling comment mine):

"This is binding (much like too much cheese), legislation that would bring to an end our involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history."

As all would not agree as to whether “Iraq?” is the “greatest foreign policy mistake in our country’s history;” might he be speaking to this “legislation” and prior attempts by Democrats at thwarting this theater of the greater war as the “foreign policy mistake,” he refers to? He could certainly always flop to that argument if necessary later.

This resolution was introduced by Harry Reid, 40 other Dems and one independent. The Post also notes that Clinton and Obama were among the 40 co-sponsors. Is this to possibly imply that perhaps Joe Lieberman is that Independent? We all know that this isn’t or wouldn’t be the case, but nice try just the same.

The resolution itself:

“notes that the circumstances referred to in the 2002 congressional authorization "have changed substantially," says U.S. troops "should not be policing a civil war" and declares that the conflict in Iraq "requires principally a political solution." Accordingly, it says, U.S. policy on Iraq "must change to emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders" and to fight the war on terrorism more effectively.”

I agree, it does “require principally a political solution,” and as the use of a military in war is an undeniable part of diplomacy and politics, this is sound judgment. Additionally, it indicates that U.S. policy on Iraq must change in recognition of this; but will Democrats really change their policy on Iraq after so much nonsense?

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2398551613441409616

Friday Sermon From Iran

According to IRNA:

"Tehran's substitute Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani by referring to the enemies' conspiracies said national unity must be maintained and those who cause discord should not be let make trouble."

I think he means us, but he also means within Iran....Freedom is great, isn't it?

Last week, Substitute Friday prayers leader of Tehran Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani:

“warned against the US and UK attempts to divide Shiites and Sunnis and said the world, including the Middle East and Muslim world, have become growingly aware.”

Which I found:

Odd that anything Tehran accuses the West of is something they, themselves are heavily involved in. Kashani calls for non-interference between Shiites and Sunnis, yet Michael Ledeen says:

“We have arrested officers from the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Baghdad and Irbil, apparently with considerable documentation of the mullahs’ support for both Sunni and Shiite terrorists.”

This week, substitute Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said:

"We are relatively in a hard situation. Our enemies, after repeated failures, have returned with new tactics."

The statement, if taken to it's logical conclusion sounds an awful lot like a case of nothing the Mullahs should be concerned about - that is if they're not in Iraq.

Visit Regime Change Iran for daily news on Momo Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

Iran and al qaeda are not the only ones in Iraq; Michelle Malkin has the goods on an even more looming threat in Iraq, "Nancy Pelosi in Baghdad."

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2169900714138328661

Democratic Leaderships Letter to President Bush

Signed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the letter, among other things says (from CNN):

"Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed."

"Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution."

"The letter also urged Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops within six months and shift the mission of the remaining force toward training and supporting Iraqi troops and battling terrorism."

Like many, but not all, nor a majority of current or former military leaders. Like *ssholes, everyone has an opinion. The leaders speak the truth (very rare), when they say, "they like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq." I have never heard that only a "military solution" is what is in the works, have you? Although they don't have to lie in making this statement, they do reveal a vast ignorance in the basics........military action often is a part of political solutions. To think of the two as wholly separate animals is just wrong!

Great job in November.....Oxymoron: Democratic Leadership.

Democratic Leadership Prepares Limits to Free Speech

I found this post at Right Truth, incredibly disturbing. San Fran Nan is just a Grandmother huh? The Democrats slowly let the American people in on their plans......

From Right Truth, "Nancy Pelosi to undermine free speech":

It seems that the Nancy Pelosi plans to 'ram through a new law that would seriously undermine free speech – and put restrictions on conservative groups and others who encourage ordinary citizens to directly deal with Congress.' (hat tip Mind of Mog who says, "Oh gee, just what I wanted… that shrew Pelosi to curb my free speech.")

Will Pelosi's plot apply to bloggers?

“The . . . plan is perhaps the most comprehensive regulation of political speech ever proposed, and would make small grassroots causes report quarterly to Congress — the same as K Street lobbyists representing wealthy interests before Congress,’ Viguerie says.

“The reporting requirements and more severe penalties being written in response to recent congressional corruption scandals would apply to those who have no Washington lobbyists, who make no political contributions, and who do not provide gifts, travel or anything of value to politicians,” Viguerie continues.

For the rest of the post get over to Right Truth.....