Liberally Conservative

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free....... ~Ronald Reagan~

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Conference Call with Dick Morris

I participated in a live conference call today with Dick Morris is best known as a central strategist in Bill Clinton's re-election campain for President of the United States.Last week, Mr. Morris and Eileen McGann published a critical article about the Clinton's that the Main Stream Media largely ignored.
xxx
Entitled "Emir's A Gusher for Bill and Hillary" the op-ed charges that Bill Clinton and those in the inner circle of both Clintons have enjoyed large financial benefits from Clinton's relationship with Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum. This story involves the controversial Dubai ports deal.
xxx
Since publication of this largely ignored column the news media has been hotly debating President Clinton's handling of the hunt for Osama bin-Ladin. Did he do enough or didn't he? Did Senator Clinton know that her campaign consultants were on the payroll of the Sheik?
xxx
Listen to this call to find out all of Morris' predictions concerning the midterm elections and Hillary's chances in '08.
xxx

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Bill Clinton and al-Qaeda

Richard Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, has written an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal reconciling what Clinton knew about al-Qaeda and what he did about them.
xxx
In What Clinton Didn't Do . . . . . . .and when he didn't do it (Subscription) Mr. Miniter lists incidents and what was done in response as follows:
  • In October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me [Miniter] that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
  • In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
  • In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
  • In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
  • In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.
  • In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case. Note: (Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. Note: The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
  • In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
  • In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39. When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it.

In his Fox interview Sunday, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993. Just one more lie out of Clinton's mouth.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Clinton's Other Diatribe er Threat

Last Thursday (9/21) Bill Clinton was asked a softball question on the Today Show.
xxx
Specifically, he threatened retaliation if any stories about his marriage appear during the 2008 campaign. His comments came in answer to a question about whether it was "fair game" for the marriage to be under "scrutiny" after The New York Times "ran a front-page article about your marriage."
xxx
"Well, the politicians don't get to decide that. But I think that the thing that I think is gonna be interesting is whether the American people, after all, with all the problems we've got, really want to see the press basically follow the Republican bloodhounds and do all that sort of stuff again and whether or not the people that are doing it can escape the same scrutiny. They have in the past. It's been a free ride, you know? Just pick a Democrat and punch that person. And I don't think that'll happen this time."
xxx
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann comment at Vote.com in ATTACK DOG - BILL THREATENS MEDIA

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Stop Internet Regulation and Taxing - IMPORTANT NOTICE!

I received an email from Thomas A. Schatz, President of Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW). Here is the letter:
xxx
In the name of so-called “net neutrality,” a number of special-interest groups, like MoveOn.org, and Internet content providers, such as Google, Yahoo, and Amazon.com, are pushing for federal regulations of the Internet that will ultimately hit you and all Internet users right in the pocketbook!
xxx Let me explain.
xxx This cadre of high-tech companies that provide search engines, websites, and other “content” for the Internet want Congress to mandate that your Internet service provider - the company that you pay for broadband or dial-up access to the Internet - must carry every single piece of content and every service they have to offer, no matter the cost. If Congress bows to their demands and imposes some of the first-ever regulations on the freewheeling Internet, your service provider will have no option but to pass the higher cost for such universal service on to you.
xxx In short, Google and the other high-tech Internet giants would have the government guarantee them below-cost access to premium high-speed network services - with you, the end-user, footing the bill!
xxx The Internet has thrived as a tool enhancing communications and commerce precisely because the government has, for the most part, taken a hands-off approach with regard to regulation and taxation. Net neutrality regulations would discourage crucial investment in broadband networks and stifle the innovation that is at the heart of the Internet’s success.
xxx
Liberally Conservative supports the CCAGW effort to fight these regulatory and taxing proposals. If you would like to fight against the efforts to charge us, the end-users, to pay for internet services beyond our current bill please click on the link below and fill out the form to send to your Congressional representative.
xxx
It's Fast, Easy and Free.............
xxx

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

FairTax Blogburst

by TD of The Right Track A quick and dirty search through Google News for articles, news, and editorials revealed no less than 14 pieces written in the last month regarding the FairTax. Fully 1/3 of those were editorials agreeing with the need for the FairTax. A sampling: From the Denver Daily News, an editorial titled "FairTax, not flat tax, needed to fix nation’s taxation woes": Dear editor, The IRS needs to be eliminated and replaced with the FairTax, not the flat tax, as suggested by columnist Aaron Harber in Monday’s Denver Daily News. The flat tax changes absolutely nothing — the IRS, tax code, regulations, 16th Amendment, corporate taxation and payroll taxes (the way Social Security is funded) stay exactly the same under the flat tax. At best, the flat tax is temporary, the wrong direction to move towards simplification. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "The Fairer Tax": The Fair Tax (FairTax.org) will make our true tax burden -- most of which is concealed in the price of goods and services -- visible to all and is a necessary first step toward smaller and less-intrusive government. We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. So first, let's replace the current complex and dishonest system of taxation with a fair and transparent system that will allow the people to choose how much government they can afford in full knowledge of how much it really costs. The Raleigh/Durham News & Observer has an editorial headlined "Total Replacement": Our tax code has grown steadily more complex, unwieldy, expensive and out of control ever since its overhaul in 1986. The IRS is increasingly unable to cope with the tax code, and puts much of its resources to uses unrelated to raising revenue and contrary to the wishes of the Founders. Like Icarus flying ever closer to the sun, the tax system appears to be headed for self-destruction. It is far beyond any fix and is losing respect and credibility. The only reasonable solution is to finally and completely scrap it and replace it. I support the revenue-neutral FairTax plan. (http://www.fairtax.org/ 1-800-FairTax).
xxx This is just a sampling of what people are saying all across the country. Truly a grassroots effort, it takes people willing to step up and show public support for the FairTax to convince politicians that it's in their best interest to support the bills. One way to show public support is to write an editorial to your local paper, no matter how large or small. Use the FairTax category that may appear on this participant blog, visit http://www.fairtax.org/, or read the FairTax book by Boortz and Linder to learn more. Get your facts straight, then write your editorial and submit it. Many papers now have a way to submit online or via e-mail. However you decide to do it, your public support for the FairTax is vital. The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Condi Rice Spanks Bill Clinton

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue Usama bin Laden, and she accused President Bush's predecessor of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight Al Qaeda. "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said Monday during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post. The newspaper published her comments Tuesday, after Clinton appeared on "FOX News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the Al Qaeda leader killed.
xxx
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
xxx
Rice disputed his assessment.
xxx "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.
xxx Rice took exception to Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.
xxx "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaeda," she told the newspaper, which is owned by News Corp., which also owns FOX News Channel.
xxx In the TV interview, Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'
xxx He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.
xxx
Watch Slick Willies temper tantrum, claims and denials here: (Click arrow play button at left bottom of TV)

xxx Rice said Clarke "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security."
xxx The interview has been the focus of much attention, earning the show its best ratings in nearly three years.
xxx Rice questioned the value of the dialogue.
xxx "I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."
xxx
Source: FoxNews

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Porker's of The Month - September 2006

Washington, D.C. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named all 171 members of Congress who voted against the disclosure of earmarks Porkers of the Month. On September 14, the House voted 245-171 for an internal rule change (H. Res. 1000) that requires all earmarks and their sponsors to be identified in spending, tax, and authorization bills.
xxx “This is a serious step toward opening up the earmarking process,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “Much remains to be done to end the abuse of earmarks, but that is no reason for voting against what is clearly an improvement over the status quo.”
xxx Of the 171 votes against the resolution, 147 were from Democrats. Twenty-two of the 24 nay votes from Republicans were members of the Appropriations Committee, infamous for its swollen earmarks, although not all on the committee opposed the measure. Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) had complained that the new requirement singled out appropriations bills but said that he would not whip the vote. Most earmarks are anonymously slipped into spending bills by individual appropriators without debate. The 2006 Congressional Pig Book identified 9,963 pork projects costing a record $29 billion in the fiscal 2006 appropriations bills.
xxx Changes to House rules are only in effect through the end of the current Congress, although House leaders have indicated that it would be renewed at the start of the new term. The House rule would also have no effect on the Senate’s earmark procedure, but the House changes are already helping to spur similar action in the Senate.
xxx House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member David Obey (D-Wis.) called the rules change a “trivial pursuit” and House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) called it “shameful” and “a sham.” What is shameful is voting to oppose even the slightest exposure of the earmark process. Ironically, most of the “nay” voters undoubtedly have long lists of pet projects procured from the pork barrel proudly displayed on their websites.
xxx Partisan politics and self-interest clearly influenced what was an easy vote for transparency and accountability. For ignoring taxpayers’ outrage over the waste and corruption of pork-barrel spending, CAGW names the 171 ‘nay’ voters on H. Res. 1000 Porkers of the Month for September 2006.
xxx Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

A Convenient Leak

How convenient to have another "classified" document leak, or at best, a partial document leak to suit the Liberal argument that terrorists have been born because of the war in Iraq, which is also a war on terrorism.
xxx
Never mind terrorists flew planes into buildings in New York and Washington D.C. with grand plans for United 93. Do the radical Islamists hate us more now than before?
xxx
Known as the NIE or National Intelligence Estimate the leaked portion concludes that "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," according to one of the unidentified "intelligence officials" cited in the Sunday New Your Times article.
xxx
In reality the NIE wasn't leaked at all but "claims" to what the report says have been leaked and of course the NY Times ran with the "story" in it's fight to uphold truth and the American way, or at least the left-wing nut caucus to discredit the Bush Administration.
xxx
As we approach Halloween, the Liberal spooks are out in force making claims, gathering retired Generals with their view only in election year politics without any consideration of getting at the facts in an objective manner.
xxx
Declassifying the NIE document would prove, as it has in the past, that these reports are not objective and often fail in factual basis. Making the entire report public would solve the two main political issues about Iraq.
  • Democrats claim that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terror and so a rapid U.S. withdrawal would leave the U.S. with more resources to fight elsewhere.
  • The Bush administration stresses Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, and that withdrawing would create a vacuum that the Islamists would fill and give them a potential new state-supported base of operations.

Opening up the entire NIE report with proper redactions would disarm the Democrats and settle the argument once and for all. Allowing a one-sided dog and pony show about Iraq and terrorism empowers the left, which leaves the facts off the table.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Bill Clinton Refuses His Own Advice

"Look what President [Hugo] Chavez just said about President Bush. You know, we--and we try to teach our children to get over it. I mean, you've got kids. You know, one of the most important things you can teach a child is that not everything that happens to you will be nice. But you are in control of how you respond to everything that happens to you. You do not have to respond with violence or anger or hatred or bitterness or demeaning conduct, and you cannot be diminished by what someone else says about you."
~Bill Clinton
Larry King Live
Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006
xxx
Mr. Bill didn't heed his own advice to President Bush as our Moonbat of the Week had his full fledged temper tantrum on FoxNews Sunday with Chris Wallace.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

A Man With A Plan

Leave it to comedian and actor Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message. Robin Williams' plan... (Hard to argue with this logic!) "I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan."
xxx
1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good ole boys", we will never "interfere" again.
xxx
2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea, the Middle East , and the Philippines . They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.
xxx
3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.
xxx
4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
xxx
5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
xxx
6) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while .
xxx
7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we'll go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)
xxx
8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of us know that what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
xxx
9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need them. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
xxx
10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.
xxx
11) The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it...or LEAVE... Now, isn't that a winner of a plan? The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' "
xxx
Hat Tip: Betty Albright-Bistrow

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Moon Bat of The Week Award!

Former President
William Jefferson Clinton
xxx
Fresh and back from vacation we have a one-day delay on our Moonbat selection but it was easy as Bill Clinton kept us from being a day late and a $3.00 Bill short.
xxx
Impeached, current New York resident living in asylum, Slick "Willie" Bill Clinton tries once again to dupe the country, failing to take responsibility for his actions and blaming a "Right-Wing Conspiracy" on his failure to take out Osama bin Laden during his eight-year Presidency of embarrassment.
xxx
Clinton, appearing on FoxNews Sunday with Chris Wallace, practically sat in the commentator's lap, red faced and shaking his finger with wild eyes and further contempt for anything standing in the way of his legacy. The interview, turned hateful, was similar to Clinton's nationally televised denial when he claimed, "I never has sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Yeah right!
xxx
A picture tells a thousand words, but a live video or written transcript explicitly tells the story in:
xxx
I Tried to Catch Osama Bin Laden (Televised Moonbat Clip)
xxx
xxx
Side Note: Bill, get some dress socks.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Conference Call with Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Yesterday I participated in a conference call with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and other bloggers. An audio file link is at the end with commentary and Q &A with participants.
xxx
Senator Santorum brings moral clarity and certainty to whatever issues he addresses. Throughout his career, neither Party loyalty nor other political considerations have swayed him from advocating the right course of action.
xxx
Most recently, he opposed the Bush Administration's decision to grant a visa to Ayatollah Khatami. He also publicly criticized Secretary Rice for adopting the European strategy of engaging the current regime in Iran.
xxx
Senator Santorum is a leading proponent of supporting democratic forces in Iran and he has authored legislation to this effect.
xxx
Some of the points made by the Senator:
  • The war is not going to be won or lost on the streets of Baghdad or Kandahar but on the streets of America. It is incumbent upon us to to recognize the... dangers of the enemy and to confront it despite unfortunate circumstances.
  • Policy makers better explain the complexity and seriousness of this enemy. The President used to call them cowards - then he stopped. They are not cowards but a serious enemy with enormous conviction who want to die for their “G-d.”This is a dangerous theology that motivates people utilizing a very effective tactic that fits its ideology – indiscriminate death.
  • The most dangerous element in the war on terror is Iran and Shia extremism. The resources behind the Shia (Iran) are much larger that Sunnis (al Quaeda). Iran is a nation state that forments and projects terror through wmd – it is the next and most truly frightening aspect of Islamo fascism.
  • We need to be more aggressive in explaining that to the American public so they understand this...
  • I was not in support of the Administration's decision to move forward with discussions with Iran.
  • The moderates need to hear from us that the current regime is corrupt and needs to be changed...
  • The UN is a feckless organization with respect to international security and won’t be at all helpful to contain the Iranian threat, and won’t do anything to stop it...
  • The State Department has been uniformly uncooperative to recognize the threat Iran poses. Iran is unwilling to be a rational player in negotiating an acceptable outcome. The State Department thinks everything is negotiable – they are being played by a song...
Click here for the 20 minute audio file.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Is Bush's Brain at Work? UPDATED!!

President Bush's latest communications offensive on Iraq appears to be yielding small initial dividends, increasing Republican and independent support as the mid-term election campaign enters its homestretch.
xxx A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that Mr. Bush's overall approval rating, as well as his rating on handling Iraq, rose modestly after a series of speeches imploring Americans to remain patient despite repeated setbacks in the war.
xxx
It remains "a modest uptick" in "a very difficult national environment" for the president's party in mid-term elections, cautions Republican pollster Bill McInturff. The president's approval rating remains weak at 42%, though improved from 38% in June.
xxx
Rasmussen poll states forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. Those are by far the best numbers for the President since mid-February.
xxx
Karl Rove is busy behind the scenes, do doubt. Stay tuned! Current Polls will be added with links.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

How Liberals Govern!

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Fatherly Advice, Professional Advice - Watch Your Back Side

I have always supported the Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld and of course our troops. I will continue to support the same group but it's disheartening to see certain people still in power in Iraq including within the government.
xxx
One is Muqtada al-Sadr who is at the center of violence in Baghdad. al-Sadr's "militias" have not been destroyed and continue to carry out missions, killing hundreds of innocent victims and targeting our troops.
xxx
We discover the current chief judge in the Saddam Hussein trials is a former Bathe Party member and judge. A Shiite Muslim with 25 years experience, Abdullah al-Amiri was a member of Saddam's Baath party and served as a judge in a criminal court under the former leader's regime. He heads the five-judge panel that will decide the fate of Saddam, a Sunni Muslim.
xxx
al-Amiri told Hussein, "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator." The judge made his remark in a friendly chat with Saddam during court proceedings, a day after the prosecution said the judge should step down because he is biased toward the defense.
xxx
"Thank you," Saddam responded, bowing his head in respect.
xxx
My son may eventually deploy to Iraq. He is in a sensitive military occupation, which could place him in Baghdad within definite harms way. How should a parent advise their son or daughter in the military when the government your country defends appears prejudice and sympathetic to the toppled regime in certain areas?
xxx
Let us not forget when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq was killed his cell phone was discovered with two speed dials to members of the Iraqi government. We have seen little to nothing about this in the media.
xxx
There will always be mistakes in war. However, when issues arise that are correctable, steps should be taken to preserve integrity or troops will begin to see the fight as futile and they'll become less enthusiastic to fight. Our government should work to have these improprieties cleaned up.
xxx
Cut and run...............Hell No! However, a recent Pentagon report states Iraq could be engulfed in a civil war within the next three months. The latest Pentagon report said: "The core conflict in Iraq changed into a struggle between Sunni and Shia extremists seeking to control key areas in Baghdad, create or protect sectarian enclaves, divert economic resources and impose their own respective political and religious agendas."
Death squads and terrorists "are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the Pentagon said.
"The Sunni Arab insurgence remains potent and viable, although its visibility has been overshadowed by the increase in sectarian violence."
xxx
If the democratically elected Iraqi government isn't cleaned up ceremonies taking over military responsibilities won't make conditions on the ground any better. This has now become an Iraqi problem and the U.S. should remain in a support function still eliminating al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi's need to take responsibility and stop the civil violence by ensuring its officials are on the right side of Democracy.
xxx
Having a chief judge sympathetic to Saddam Hussein is not reassuring. Having cleric run militias must be stopped immediately. If the Iraqi's want the power they need to take on the full responsibility.
xxx
Of course in our country we need to contend with the appeasing Liberals. Appeasing tyrannical regimes will get you killed.
xxx
On the other hand, when the government you support backs a turn coat "moderate" in Rhode Island instead of a candidate with Conservative principles one must stop, look and listen. Is this about retaining the majority, against your own "prescribed" principles?
xxx
In elections around the country incumbent moderates were backed by the RNC and Bush adminstration, strictly against Conservative principles. The time has come to put up or shut up and election year politics against conservatives and the abysmal record of Republicans in Congress leaves one to question politics in Iraq.
xxx
If our sons and daughters are put into harms way can we trust the political rhetoric, which stands against our Conservative beliefs and principles?
xxx
On the home front can I trust the Republicans and this administration to support Conservative principles? So far it isn't looking good. However, the prospects of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean running the country is still a great motivator to support what's "right" in our government.
xxx
In Iraq we must watch closely; stop, look and listen. Fatherly advice to my son? Always watch your back side, as well as all sides. Don't sell your soul, stick to your principles. You could be sleeping with the enemy.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

OPEC Confused

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) headlines don't necessarily reconcile.
  • "OPEC Secretary-General Expresses Concern Over Rising Oil Prices"--May 16, 2004 ($40.77)
  • "OPEC Says It's Lost Control of Oil Prices"--March 14, 2005 ("north of $50 a barrel and rising")
  • "OPEC President Voices Concerns Over Rising Prices"--Aug. 28, 2005 ($66.13)
  • "Falling Oil Prices Add to Opec's Worries"--Sept. 12, 2006 ($63.76)

Source: Opinion Journal (subscription)

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

FairTax Blogburst

by Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous To borrow what was spoken of last week in the Fair Tax BlogBurst, I thought I would take this burst, and build upon the debate begun by one of Debbie's readers at Right Truth. For those of you knew to the audience, here is the original burst, and here is the assertion made by "Ralph Ekwall." We now have a progressive income tax system that imposes a higher rate of taxation for high income earners. The so-called “Fair Tax” would impose a higher rate of taxation on middle and low income earners and allow most of the money earned by wealthy people to be untaxed. I tend to disagree entirely with the thesis underpinning any progressive tax system delineating that there are certain brackets of individuals who should be punished just for the simple fact that they earn higher incomes than other individuals. The fundamental creed of this dogma accepts the premise that the spectrum of incomes is nothing more than a zero-sum game. Thus, individuals do not have any chance whatsoever to rise to those higher brackets and better themselves as they move throughout life. However, I digress, for I wanted to discuss was the specifics surrounding "the prebate." I believe this scheme encapsulates the “equality” sought by “progressive” proponents of any progressive tax scheme better than the progressive tax could ever hope to achieve. That is, equality can be seen only if one does not have class warfare and envy as the basis for their tax structure. So, how does this “prebate” work? All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. (See chart in Figure 1 below) And, as we see in how this "prebate" works, one is able to ascertain the notion of equality realized by the "prebate." The prebate seeks to treat a "necessity" just as their name implies they should be treated. The necessities are the substance and the needs that every American needs in order to survive. It treats every American as if they are the same in the basics of what they need to survive. It treats all Americans equally. In this definition of "equal" all Americans are treated the same no matter their socio-economic status, which brings up another subject....constitutional history. At this moment, I would really like to express my appreciation to TD for being patient with me throughout the course of this summer. As some of you may know, I sat for the bar recently and I have been detained with an interstate move, new employment and biting my fingernails off as I wait for the bar results. But, enough of my excuses, Terry and I started this BlogBurst and, unfortunately, Terry has had to shoulder much of the load this summer. He has done a tremendous job and I know all of you appreciate his hard work and dedication. I just wanted to say thanks, good buddy!
xxx The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Connecting Terror Dots

Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami condemned Osama bin Laden and suicide bombing but also defended groups such as Hezbollah for what he characterized as resistance against Israeli colonialism the Associated Press reports from Harvard, where Khatami spoke last night.
  • Hezbollah is from Lebanon.
  • Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.
  • Israel has settlements in the West Bank (Colonialism?).

Let's connect the dots on Khatami's view of justifying terrorism.

  • Hezbollah (Party A) attacks Israel (Party B) because it's ongoing conflict with Hamas and Palestine (Party C).

Khatami's reasoning would justify the United States (Party A) to attack Iran (Party B) because of U.S. support of Israel (Party C).

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

What 9/11 Didn't Change

It was often said at the time that 9/11 changed everything. That turns out to have been an exaggeration. One thing it did not change is elite liberal opinion--as represented by the press, academia and the Democratic Party--which has fallen back on the adversarial attitudes it developed in the late Cold War era, which is to say the era of Vietnam, Watergate and their aftermath.
xxx
Liberals' blasé approach to the terror threat will be wholly unsustainable in the event of another attack. Thus, paradoxically, opposition to the antiterror effort remains alive only because of that effort's success.
xxx
xxx
In event of another attack on the United States the Liberals will be out front blaming George W. Bush.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Monday, September 11, 2006

9/11 Refresher Course

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

We Remember to Never Forget!

Where Were You? Comment!

At 8:46 a.m. five years ago today, American Airlines Flight 11, with 92 people on board, crashed into 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower).

At 9:03 a.m., five years ago today, United Airlines Flight 175, with 65 people on board, crashed into 2 World Trade Center (the South Tower)

At 9:37 a.m. , five years ago today, American Airlines Flight 77 with 64 people aboard crashed into the Pentagon.

At 10:03 a.m. , five years ago today, United Airlines Flight 93 with 44 people aboard crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after the passengers attempted to overpower the hijackers and retake the plane.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The Pre-edited video clips Clinton & the Democrats Don't Want You to See!

NOTE: Click the "Play" arrow if "Click to Start" does not work properly.
Part 1 of 6
Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Bill Clinton and Bin Laden - Missed Opportunities UPDATED!

ABC airs "The Path to 9/11" this evening in a two-part mini-series. The Clintonites are going crazy over the "lies" they claim are portrayed in the movie. I would say ABC should not mix fact with fiction, if that's what they have done. However, there have been first hand accounts of Clinton's miss opportunities to get bin Laden.
xxx
I have written more than once about Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson who carried the "nuclear football" for Clinton during a portion the Clinton's presidency. Patterson's position puts him up close and personal into daily activities of any President.
xxx
One of the main thrusts in ABC's "docudrama" is the Clinton administrations failure to kill Osama bin Laden when they had the opportunities. In Patterson's "Dereliction of Duty" the Clinton administration has bin Laden in their sites during the fall of 1998 and had a two-hour window to eliminate him.
xxx
Here is what Patterson explained as a missed opportunity to get bin Laden:
xxx
The first missed opportunity occurred when Clinton was engaged in watching a golf tournament and became irritated when Patterson approached him. After Patterson's third attempt to get Clinton to return Sandy Berger's urgent phone calls, Clinton gave Patterson a cool response he would phone Berger on his way back to the White House. The defeated Berger knew that the opportunity was gone.
xxx
Berger was told by a military watch officer "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike." After Clinton did not return phone calls from Berger for over an hour, Clinton then wanted more time to study the situation. Dereliction of Duty reveals "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."
xxx
Clinton was told fighter jets were running on an air craft carrier and needed to take off. Preoccupied with golf Clinton refused to listen to Patterson, the jets idled until the fuel levels were to low for takeoff and bin Laden remains alive.
xxx
While the Clintonites protest, Patterson comments on his screening of tonights movie:
xxx
"I have seen the ABC mini-series. It is right on the money. I was there with Clinton and Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur. Anything to the contrary is political spin ."
xxx
The DNC, Howard Dean, Harry Reid and their ilk are only good at one thing and that's political spin.
xxx
UPDATE!
xxx
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.
xxx In an interview with World Net Daily, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.
xxx Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.
xxx Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.
xxx "I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.
xxx
Full Story --->>> World Net Daily

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

A Letter to California Politicians from a Reader

I received an email from one Chadwick who is upset with the California legislature and I would agree things are nuts on the left coast. Here is what Chadwick writes:
xx
Dear Free-loaders, Get this one... A controversial bill that would allow illegal immigrants to get state financial aid while attending Californians [sic] public colleges and universities is now in the hands of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has until the end of this month to sign or veto. State financial aid for illegal immigrants. What does that mean? Let me answer that for you. It means that the state is paying people to be criminals. When a person sneaks into the country without being properly admitted that person is committing a crime. When you commit a crime you are a criminal. If a person aids a person knowing that person is a criminal, there is a word for that, too. It's called an accessory. If you commit a crime and then come to me and ask for money so that you can leave the state and escape the law...I become a criminal, too. However, when foreigners commit a crime by coming here illegally and they ask for money from the state, it's called financial aid. That doesn't make sense to me. Why not give money to car thieves, too? How about this...get pulled over for a DWI and the state writes you a check for a thousand bucks? Sound good to you? It makes about as much sense as this illegal immigration law. And it's not like the hippies in California are tuning their backs on the poor indigents streaming clandestinely over the boarder like cockroaches. The governor has supported an existing state law, passed in 2002, which now allows undocumented students in California to pay in-state tuition rates in public colleges and universities. Tuition for non-California residents is about 10 times higher. Now, I don't know exactly where Tijuana is, but I know it's not IN the state of California. Hell, let's go all the way and just give California back to Mexico. I think they deserve each other. I need a drink, Chadwick
xxx
Cheers Chadwick!

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Moon Bat of The Week Award!

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
xxx
"If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
xxx
These were Moonbat Pelosi's comments to Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's address to the 88th Annual American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake, Utah this week.
xxx
Victory in World War II was anything but easy. More than 16 million American servicemen took part in the war, of whom 291,557 were killed in battle and 113,842 others died in service. That's a total of 405,399, well over 100 times as many U.S. servicemen as have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
xxx
The facts cast Pelosi's "history" about World War II in an even more withering light. Ms. Pelosi and her ilk on the left spend their time in attack mode, with no plan, no ideas, no intestinal fortitude. Liberals criticize the people doing the heavy lifting and taking responsibility for America's safety. Pelosi wants power but has never demonstrated any ability to wield that power.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Imagine That!

Key European nations warn that Iran is trying to weaken international opposition to its contentious nuclear program by stalling on giving a clear response to terms set by six world powers for negotiations, according to a confidential document obtained Thursday.
xxx
"The Iranian goal obviously is to split the international community," said the document, drawn up by Britain, France and Germany, and made available to The Associated Press ahead of a key meeting of the five U.N. Security Council nations plus Germany.
xxx
The document, labeled "In Confidence," summarizes Iran's response to a six-power offer to Iran dangling the prospect of technical, economic and political rewards if it agrees to suspend enrichment before talks begin and consider a long-term moratorium on the technology, which can be misused to make nuclear arms.
xxx
Now can we imagine that Iran would really play games and employ delay tactics so they can build a nuclear bomb? We're sure the Liberals need more diplomacy and the U.N. will make more idle threats.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Joe Wilson's Pathetic Last Stand - Liar's Recap

The media finally acknowledged Joe Wilson has lost all credibility; "It's Unfortunate That So Many People Took Him Seriously." The Washington Post: "[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming - falsely, as it turned out - that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials." (Editorial, "End Of An Affair," The Washington Post, 9/1/06) The Washington Post: "He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously." (Editorial, "End Of An Affair," The Washington Post, 9/1/06) Slate's Christopher Hitchens: "[T]here was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. ... [t]here remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame." (Christopher Hitchens, "Plame Out," Slate, 8/29/06) Mort Kondracke, Executive Editor Of Roll Call: "[T]his whole conspiracy theory of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney masterminding this entire plot to out Valerie Plame ... and violate the intelligence agent's identity's act and all this stuff ... it's empty." (Fox News' "Special Report," 8/28/06) The [Manchester] Union Leader: "Wilson ... promoted the erroneous ideas that he was sent on behalf of Vice President Dick Cheney and that his trip was some sort of definitive investigation rather than a diplomatic courtesy call." (Editorial, "End Of The Affair: No Blame In Plame Game," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 8/30/06) The [Manchester] Union Leader: "Those were intentional deceits. Wilson misled ... The facts are quite clear. There was no conspiracy to out an undercover CIA agent. None. Zero. Nada. It did not happen. End of story." (Editorial, "End Of The Affair: No Blame In Plame Game," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 8/30/06) The Chicago Tribune: "The facile saga of vengeful White House warmongers recruiting [Bob] Novak to help them destroy beleaguered Joe Wilson appears to be myth." (Editorial, "A Surprise In The Plame Case," The Chicago Tribune, 9/1/06) National Review: "This revelation lays waste to the notion that Vice President Dick Cheney, former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, and top White House aide Karl Rove conspired to 'out' Plame as a way of smearing her husband, the anti-Bush gadfly Joseph Wilson." (Editorial, "The Real Scandal," National Review, 8/30/06) Fred Barnes, Executive Editor Of The Weekly Standard: "So, the Bush White House, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and others were hung out to dry and the charge grew and was widely proclaimed in the press and among Democrats and among critics of the White House, that the White House had smeared an innocent man, Joe Wilson, who merely told the truth. And it turns out that was wrong from the beginning." (Fox News' "Special Report," 8/28/06) FLASHBACK: Wilson Claimed He Was The Victim Of An Organized Smear Campaign:
xxx Joe Wilson: "[T]he smear campaign ... was being undertaken by the Republican National Committee and this administration's right wing allies." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 11/1/05) Wilson: "Obviously, there's been this orchestrated campaign, this smear campaign. I happen to think that it's because the RNC, the Republican National Committee's been involved in this in a big way ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04) Wilson: "[T]here have been a number of articles written attacking me. ... I've since learned from a couple of different reporters that White House sources have been telling [them] the story is Wilson and his wife... It's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/22/03) Wilson: "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." (Timothy Noah, "Did Rove Blow A Spook's Cover?" Slate, 9/16/03) FLASHBACK: Democrats Have Hailed Wilson As A Hero Of The Left: On The Eve Of His Lawsuit Announcement, Joe Wilson Attended Senate Democrats' Policy Luncheon.
xxx
Fox News' Brit Hume: "Plame [was] seen ... with her husband Joe Wilson arriving for a policy luncheon with Senate Democrats today." (Fox News' "Special Report," 7/13/06) Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "It was you [Nutroots] who defended Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson against Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove." (Sen. Harry Reid, Remarks At Yearly Kos Convention, Las Vegas, NV, 6/10/06) Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "I am pleased to be here today with Ambassador Joe Wilson ... his wife, an undercover CIA employee, was exposed for what appeared to be political motivations. ... [Joe Wilson] has served his country, has - and his wife as well - have risked themselves in many ways for this country. And it was they who had politics played upon them, not the other way around." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, 7/14/05) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): "Joe Wilson is here my pal! ... [Joe] you deserve the thanks of a nation and instead of that they went after your family and it is despicable and cowardly and I'm so proud of you." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Remarks At The Yearly Kos Convention, Las Vegas, NV, 6/9/06) Joe Wilson Attended Fundraisers For Democrat Parties, Candidates, And Causes. "Joseph Wilson ... will headline two DFL Party fundraisers in the Twin Cities ... and has made numerous appearances in recent years on behalf of Democratic candidates and causes ..." (Conrad Defiebre "Lightning Rod On Iraq War To Headline Two DFL Fundraisers," [Minneapolis, MN] Star Tribune, 12/7/05) xxx Source: GOP.com

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

We Couldn't Have Said It Better

Dear Senator Reid:
xxx
Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.
xxx
A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.
xxx
Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.
xxx
First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.
xxx
Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.
xxx
Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.
xxx
Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.
xxx
On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).
xxx
Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.
xxx
Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.
xxx
Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.
xxxx
We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.
xxx
Sincerely,
xxx
Joshua B. Bolten
White House Chief of Staff

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

Two Wrongs Make It Wrong

In an emotionally charged press conference Monday, crazed Palestinian gunman Faisal al Hamad expressed frustration over the stereotyping of his people. "As a crazed Palestinian gunman, I feel hurt by the negative portrayal of my people in the media," said al Hamad, 31, a Hebron-area terrorist maniac. "None of us should have to live with stereotyping and ignorance." He then began screaming and firing into a busload of Israeli schoolchildren. "It hurts that in this supposedly enlightened day and age, people still make assumptions about other people," al Hamad said. "We should not rely on simple generalizations. Each crazed Palestinian gunman is an individual."
xxx
The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England has warned that stereotyping members of her community is leading some towards extremism," reports London's Daily Mail: Hammasa Kohistani made history last year when she was chosen to represent England in the Miss World pageant. . . . She said: "The attitude towards Muslims has got worse over the year. Also the Muslims' attitude to British people has got worse." "Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more. . . ."
xxx
How do you spell Islamist Fascist?

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.

FairTax Blogburst

by Debbie of The Right Truth A reader here at Right Truth, Ralph Ekwall, who doesn’t like the Fair Tax sent me an email. He seemed to think that I would not be interested in hearing his opinions, but that could not be further from the truth. I think healthy debate is good and encourage it. Below are his arguments and our reply: I doubt you will print this since it is in opposition to the “Fair Tax.” The “Fair Tax” is really unfair because it taxes middle and low income people at a higher rate than wealthy income people. Here is an example. Let us consider a tax rate of 30% for the so-called “Fair Tax.” Let us look at how it affects two different American families: Mr. Average Joe and Mr. Rich. Mr. Average Joe makes just $45,000 per year. At that salary he must spend everything that he makes to support his family. So, almost all of his income is taxed. His rate of taxation is between 27- and 30% He may give money to his church or to a charity and that would not be taxed. Now consider Mr. Rich who has an income of $10,000,000 per year. He is really rich. Most of his income will be reinvested in his business and not taxed. He will put some of his money into an education trust for his children and that is not taxed. It may be possible that he will spend $1,000,000 of his income, but that is doubtful. If so then $1,000,000 of his income is taxed and he has $9,000,000 of income that is not touched by taxation. His rate of taxation is about 3%. I ask you - is that a fair tax????????? We now have a progressive income tax system that imposes a higher rate of taxation for high income earners. The so-called “Fair Tax” would impose a higher rate of taxation on middle and low income earners and allow most of the money earned by wealthy people to be untaxed. It does not seem fair to me. –by Ralph Ekwall Our reply: You fail to mention that Mr. Average Joe will benefit tremendously from the PREBATE included in the FairTax. Your statement that “almost all” of his income would be taxed is erroneous. I cannot off the top of my head tell you how much of a prebate Mr. Average Joe and his family would receive, but it would be substantial. You also fail to consider that Mr. Rich who will not have to pay tax on his income or on returns from his investments will now have more money to re-invest and he will probably have more money to return to his business which in turn creates jobs for people like Mr. Average Joe. The economy prospers, Mr. Rich is rewarded rather than punished for his entrepreneurship, and Mr. Average Joe and his friends would be assured of good jobs.
xxx Hmmmmmmmmmm, I’m doing a little math here: If Mr. Average Joe spends all of his 45,000 dollars and is taxed at say 23 percent he would pay $10,350 in taxes most of which he would get back in the prebate. If Mr. Rich spends a million dollars at 23 percent his tax would be $230,000 and his prebate would be insignificant to the tax that he paid. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, sounds fair to me. Also, don’t forget that the tax is paid ONLY on NEW goods and services. If Mr. Average Joe buys that decent used minivan for his family, guess what! NO TAX! –by Thomas Hamilton We welcome any other comments or opinions, and thanks Mr. Ekwall for this opportunity to address your questions. The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

You are viewing a post on the old Liberally Conservative site. Click here to find this post on the new site.