Today closes with some outstanding revelations of American success on the world stage.
First, we announced the capture of the senior Iraqi member of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia leadership. Capturing Khalid al-Mashadani, a/k/a Abu Shahed, strikes an enormous blow simply by taking out the foreign al Qaeda leadership link to the Iraqi insurrection. Even better, Mashadani is apparently singing.
Second, coercive diplomacy has worked in a multilateral setting for W and Condi. North Korea has closed its nuclear enrichment facility at Yongbyon. The grossly hypocritical liberal attack machine derided he President’s insistence on North Korea’s adherence to the Six Party format as the obdurate behavior of an ignorant cowboy (whereas his 41 nation coalition against Iraq was derided as the unilateralist jingoism). In reality, the President is forcing the North Koreans to adhere to American demands, which takes persistence. We’ll see where this leads but it is a major positive development on the non-proliferation front..
I wonder if either was covered on the network news tonight?
First, we announced the capture of the senior Iraqi member of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia leadership. Capturing Khalid al-Mashadani, a/k/a Abu Shahed, strikes an enormous blow simply by taking out the foreign al Qaeda leadership link to the Iraqi insurrection. Even better, Mashadani is apparently singing.
Second, coercive diplomacy has worked in a multilateral setting for W and Condi. North Korea has closed its nuclear enrichment facility at Yongbyon. The grossly hypocritical liberal attack machine derided he President’s insistence on North Korea’s adherence to the Six Party format as the obdurate behavior of an ignorant cowboy (whereas his 41 nation coalition against Iraq was derided as the unilateralist jingoism). In reality, the President is forcing the North Koreans to adhere to American demands, which takes persistence. We’ll see where this leads but it is a major positive development on the non-proliferation front..
I wonder if either was covered on the network news tonight?
41 comments:
Bush got our N Korea policy back to where it was when he took office. But in the meantime he allowed them to get a few N-bombs while he was being bull-headed (not to mention distracted by his GWOT).
Spotlight..were you recently born and have forgotten about Clinton's treaty with North Korea? Geez...you probably missed that bit of news because Jon Stewart may not have covered it.
Norwegians are among the most heavily taxed people in the world, and that in turn has made Norway one of the most expensive countries in which to live.
The taxes placed on new cars, which can more than double the price of the car itself, are another bone of contention, even though most Norwegians support measures to protect the environment.
Three of four Norwegians believe that's too high, according to the MMI study, and absolutely no one believed it was too low.
The study also showed that 67 percent of the population think Norway's inheritance taxes are too high, while 63 percent think fuel taxes are too high.
Norway's hefty 25 percent VAT (like a sales tax) on nearly all consumer items is considered too high by 53 percent of the population.
The user taxes, or avgifter, are also unpopular because they're largely regressive taxes that hit people with low incomes much harder than those with high incomes.
At deadline it may still be too early to judge the success of Sen. Maj. Leader's Harry Reid's (D-NV) Iraq funding debate slumber party, but judging from the expectations of the netroots going into the night, the event was less than successful.
The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu:
"If Reids serious, and can't achieve a cloture vote in one night, he should keep the Senate in session for as long as it takes to get an up or down vote on the Levin/Reed bill to redeploy the troops.
Otherwise, Republican talking points that this is just a political theater stunt will ring too true."
Early indications from MSM reports and headlines show Dems did not drive coverage as they hoped. TPM's Josh Marshall details unsatisfactory results from McClatchy, AP, Washington Post, and Reuters.
ABC's Diane Sawyer was singled out for the greatest netroots abuse for telling GMA 7/17 that Reid "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals."
Media Matters explains: "by planning to extend the Senate session throughout the night, Reid is not "vow[ing] to filibuster," as Sawyer reported.
Rather, he is highlighting the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal; in other words, it is the Republicans who are filibustering the withdrawal proposal by requiring that 60 senators vote for the amendment in order for it to pass."
Few conservatives stayed up to enjoy the Iraq debate, but after the APreported that Reid "loosened up a bit on his plans to teach members of the minority that Democrats set the schedule on the debate over Iraq" sometime around midnight, Captain's Quarters was happy he did.
CW blogs: "So what did this accomplish? Nothing. After midnight, most of the Senate disappeared. It turned into nothing more than a huge bluff, and Reid lost."
CQ explains: "Reid counted on Republicans forcing an end to the session by having a single member present to challenge for a quorum.
No votes could take place without one, including the instruction motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest recalcitrant members and drag them back to the chamber.
That would have allowed Reid and the Democrats to accuse Republicans of dodging the debate, calling them cowards to take the spotlight off of their insistence on retreat.
... but it turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid.
Instead of denying Reid a quorum, the Republicans showed up for the debate, perhaps charged up by John McCain's earlier speech on the floor.
Once Reid figured out that the Republicans would not give him the satisfaction of walking out the door, he caved."
By Dan Gearino Journal Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES -- Iowa gets low marks because of inadequate disclosure of the governor's outside financial interests, according to a report released today by the Washington, D.C.,-based Center of Public Integrity.
Iowa is one of 21 states that get an "F" in the report, entitled, "States of Disclosure."
"Filings by many governors show they have money and personal influence beyond the power they derive from public office," said the report's author, Leah Rush.
Iowa requires a basic financial disclosure by the governor and candidates for governor. But the state doesn't require disclosure of the governor's income from all sources and it doesn't require disclosure from the governor's spouse. Also, there is no process for the governor or the governor's spouse to list current and former business relationships.
Who cares about the details of this legislative maneuvering? Does your average voter care? – The bottom line is this: The R minority and W are keeping us from changing course. We’ll see if the voters will thank the R’s come November ’08.
And in response, Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid has pulled the Defense Authorization bill and it appears that he won’t bring it back to the floor until he can be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment and three others that will be offered (Warner-Lugar, Salazar ISG, and Landrieu).
Talk about playing hardball.
What this means is this: Reid is basically saying he won't allow any votes on any other Iraq amendments -- not the toothless Warner-Lugar amendment, not the Ken Salazar amendment that would force adoption of the Baker-Hamilton plan, nothing -- until the GOP agrees to allow straight up or down votes.
Rf - According to Rasmussen from July 16th, Fifty-one percent (51%) of American voters say that the United States should wait for the September progress report before making major policy changes in Iraq.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 (Rasmussen)
Cindy Sheehan is marching to Washington demanding that Nancy Pelosi launch impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
Today, the grieving mother who lost her son in Iraq and maintained an anti-War protest outside of President Bush's ranch, is viewed favorably by 22% of Americans. That's down from 31% in September 2005.
Fifty percent (50%) now have an unfavorable view of Sheehan. That’s up from 39% a couple of years ago
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 (Rasumussen)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) is viewed favorably by 39% of American voters and unfavorably by 47%. That’s down from a month ago when she was viewed favorably by 47% and unfavorably by 45%.
While Pelosi’s ratings are down this month, they remain much higher than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (19% favorable)
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Wed Jul 18, 8:13 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. voters think the country is on the wrong track and remain deeply unhappy with President George W. Bush and Congress, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Eighteen months before Bush leaves the White House, nearly two-thirds of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction and give the president negative marks for his job performance.
An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job -- the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll.
In the national survey of 1,012 likely voters, taken July 12 through July 14, about 66 percent said Bush had done only a fair or poor job as president, with 34 percent ranking his performance as excellent or good.
That is up slightly from his low of 30 percent in early March
Thursday, July 19, 2007 (Rasmussen)
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans approve of the way that President George W. Bush his performing his job.
As former North Carolina Senator John Edwards uses his campaign to shine a spotlight on poverty issues, 56% of voters say the government is not doing enough to combat poverty.
Half (47%) say that anyone who is willing to work hard can get out of poverty on their own.
Today’s update from Rasmussen shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton has dropped two points while Obama picked up three. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards slipped a point to 13%.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters see most Democrats in Congress as politically liberal. That’s up from 33% a month ago but down from 41% two months ago.
Thirty-eight percent 38% now say most Democrats in Congress are politically moderate. That’s down from 45% last month.
This month’s Rasmussen poll finds a decline in the Democrats advantage among voters not affiliated with either major party.
Currently, 33% of unaffiliateds would vote for a Democrat while 30% would vote for a Republican.
A month ago, Democrats were favored among unaffiliated voters by a 41% to 18% margin
Rasmussen on the issue of National Security. 45% of likely voters trust Republicans more than Democrats, while 44% trust Democrats more, a net swing of eight points toward Republicans since early June.
Among unaffiliated voters, the GOP now has a modest edge on two issues—National Security and Immigration according to Rasumussen.
On National Security, unaffiliated voters prefer the GOP by a 44% to 37% margin.
On Immigration, the unaffiliateds prefer Republicans by a narrow 32% to 27% margin (41% don’t trust either party on the Immigration issue).
In the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson ticked up a couple of points to 26% while former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani remains in second at 21%.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain are tied at 11%. Mike Huckabee is favored by 4%, five other candidates split 6%, and 21% are undecided.
The House Wednesday evening rejected eliminating the $420 million federal subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
"Taxpayers are being asked to pay more in taxes because Congress is not willing to make hard choices and balance our spending with our income," Lamborn said.
In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are "more at risk," he said, "and less safe than we should have been at this point."
We would be safer with "better polices" � such as, presumably, Bill Clinton's policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist and leaving the problem for the next president.
Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities.
Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. "Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!"
Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments — that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger.
He said "al-Qaida is insurgent again" because we've "turned Iraq into an incubator" for jihadists.
But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was "more skeptical than I'd like to be" of the Bush administration's warning of a terrorist attack.
Damn that Bush! He's inflamed an imaginary enemy!
CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: "President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil."
Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"?
How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet?
What a weird aberration.
How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?
Ironically, the Democrats' ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush's successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats.
It's going to be harder to persuade Americans that the "war on terrorism" is George Bush's imaginary enemy — the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman Keith Ellison — if there is another terrorist attack.
So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq.
The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago.
The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub, might even shake up the young progressive crowd.
Apparently their soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.
In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq.
Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence."
Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United States — not, that is, until we started fighting them!
But as soon as we entered the war — taking the bait of Hitler's declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid falling for in the case of al-Qaida — Hitler began portraying FDR as a pawn of the Jews.
Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes.
Fake dollar bills with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.
According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States less safe.
Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No.
Was Hitler able to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes.
Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq.
Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S.
In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S.
The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?
COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
July 1940 – September 1944) French regime in World War II after the German defeat of France.
The Franco-German armistice (June 1940) divided France into two zones: one under German military occupation and one under nominal French control (the southeastern two-fifths of the country).
The National Assembly, summoned at Vichy to ratify the armistice, was persuaded by Pierre Laval to grant Philippe Pétain authority to assume full powers in the French State.
The antirepublican Vichy government collaborated with the Germans and became increasingly a tool of German policy, especially after the Germans occupied the whole of France in 1942.
By early 1944 the Resistance movement against the Gestapo and Vichy militias created a period of civil war in France, and after the liberation of Paris the Vichy regime was abolished.
I would like someone to produce a quote from the 1990’s by an R politician criticizing Bill Clinton for not going more aggressively after terrorists. I don’t remember any such talk. Lots of wag the dog accusations when he did do something, though.
I heard McConnell yesterday touting the line about no attacks on U.S. soil as proof of Iraq War success. If/when an attack does happen, this last semi-logical defense of the W disaster will make the house of cards finally collapse. What is going to be the defense then? - As we all know, those terrorists are real patient bastards. I suspect they can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I suspect they are not all in Iraq.
Henri Pétain became the "Traitor of Vichy" during World War II for his collaboration with the occupying forces of Nazi Germany.
A colonel when WW I began, Pétain proved himself early at the Battle of the Marne (September 1914) and was promoted to brigadier general. In 1916 he defended the German advance on Verdun and became a national hero, known for his rallying cry of "Ils ne passeront pas!" ("They shall not pass!").
By 1917 Pétain was the supreme commander of all French armies; he was instrumental in putting down mutinous rumblings from foot soldiers and in negotiating the end of the war. He was made a marshal of France for his service and spent the '20s and '30s in military and political matters in Morocco and France.
While serving as the ambassador to Spain in 1940, Pétain was called back to try and save France from the Nazi invasion.
Although he was 83, it was hoped that his involvement would boost French morale, and he was made titular head of a new government seated in Vichy, outside the territory occupied by the Nazis.
Pétain surrendered to Germany on 22 June 1940 and tried unsuccessfully to maintain an independent and collaborative government.
The Nazis occupied Vichy in 1942 and in August 1943 Pétain was arrested by the Germans.
He was returned to France near the end of the war in April 1945 and was ultimately sentenced to death for treason.
Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.
Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.
After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"
"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."
And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.
Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.
As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?
UPDATE: I failed to report last night that a certificate filed with the requested funds says the money is actually earmarked to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit technological consulting firm. A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha's reelection campaign since April 2002.
The Iowa Department of Economic Development announced today that it would award tax benefits worth $2.67 million to Principal.
Principal is one of 14 projects the Economic Development Board and Iowa Department of Economic Development announced it would support today. Other projects are for Target Corp., Cargill Inc. and Red Star Yeast Company LLC. TPI Composites Inc. was awarded an offer of $2 million.
Sally Pederson, who served as lieutenant governor under Gov. Tom Vilsack, has been elected to the board of Bravo Greater Des Moines and named chairperson.
Bravo supports arts and cultural organizations through public and private funding.
the tax dollars that go to bravo do not go to fund childrens health care. which is more important?
Post a Comment