Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Some Things Just Burn My Ass

(Contributed by Sarge Charlie, at the preceding link.)

What and old soldier thinks....





















Four years ago yesterday, the headlines were “Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln”, since that time the media and the political opponents of the President have besmirched this action as phoney, and grandstanding. Maybe so, but I saw it differently. I saw a president willing to meet the returning warriors and just say thank you. If that is political grandstanding then it is good grandstanding. This old soldier swelled with pride when that jet landed on the deck of the Lincoln, tears swelled in my eyes when I saw a man as important as the President of the United States willing to take the time to say thanks. A small thing, hell no, the effect this had on moral of the military forces of this country was overwhelming. Anyone who cannot understand that needs to stand the post, walk in harms way, suck it up when someone is trying to kill you, then you will understand.

Fast forward four years, the Congress passed an Emergency Funding Bill, a surrender bill, last Friday, April 27, 2007. Purely for political gain, the Congress sat on this most important piece of Legislation that they have produced in today’s Congress for four days so they could further besmirch our President. It was a truly shameful attempt to destroy the moral of Americas fighting force. What the hell is wrong with these people, are they cowards, or worse, traitors, we have men and women in harms way and while Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. smirks while uttering the words “we will shove this down the presidents throat.” I consider the source and try to ignore what he said, but he is a candidate, trying to be President of the United States. I will not say what I would like to shove down his throat.

This crap is not funny folks, it is serious and deadly, soldiers are in harms way, they need what they need, and we should give it to them, no strings attached. What is happening is shameful, truly shameful.

And that is what I have to say about that.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Con and Pro on the New Bush Plan for Iraq


Bush plan for Iraq: 20,000 new troops; Iraqi control by November.


Considering the New Plan


I believe that paz y amour's response to yesterday's post Scoundrel-osity, about the Democratic demogoging of the issue of the new Bush plan for Iraq, is a good explanation of one way of thinking about Bush's idea to inject 20,000 new troops into the Iraq situation. I'll use paz' response as the first part of this post, and then I'll add my take on Bush's plan. Don't forget to check out paz' blog, the path.

One Argument Against the Plan: paz y amour


Forgive me for saying that I saw this post coming a mile away once I saw Eddie Kennedy spouting off about hijacking funding. I have to agree that he's being despicable with this latest antic. At the same time though, I feel another "Why Bush is an Idiot" post coming on. Here's my take on the whole "surge" idea:

Military Advice

A) Apparently, there is a large contingency of GENERALS and MILITARY leaders at the Pentagon saying that an increase of troops of only 20 thousand is a bad idea.




These are the people who have been shot/shot at in combat, know military strategy better than any of us and are the ones that should be trusted, right?


click to show/hide the rest of this section


The Baker Commission

B) A bipartisan committee of past presidential cabinet members came up with a series of suggestions to help the current president through this mess. These are people who have successfully worked through international crises in the past and are people who's opinions SHOULD be trusted, right?

and


Iraqi Cooperation

C) Military leaders are going along with this plan contingent on (yet another) promise from the Iraqi government to give full cooperation and support politically and militarily. This "promise" should be trusted, right? Uhh, right....

Troop Morale

Despite the reservations and recommendations of the military and Iraq committee, the president wants to INSTEAD slowly put more troops into Iraq- meaning the SAME soldiers are RETURNING to Iraq before they planned/intended to. That's a surefire way to boost morale!

A Bad Plan and a Lack of Leadership

Obviously we don't have the numbers on the ground to overrun an insurgency and another 20 thousand isn't significant enough. We'd probably need 200 thousand to make a difference (in Gulf War 1, we had 600 thousand troops!). The problem isn't in a lack of political support, lack of funding or a lack of materials, it's a lack of LEADERSHIP. The president has shown his ineptitude in this conflict (as you will agree) and obviously STILL has no viable plan to make it as successful as possible. I just wish those "demagogues" (Eddie et al.) would say that the "plan" to put a few more troops on the ground sucks and a much better one needs to be put into place rather than trying to use political muscle to get Bush to capitulate.

paz y amour

click to hide most of this section


One Argument For the Plan: Rock


I'm not going to go into great detail in defending the plan, as I really am ignorant of many inside details that would be necessary for me to say with confidence that it would or wouldn't work.

Valid Arguments Against the Deployment

Paz' major points that 20,000 troops will not be enough and that our troops are already deployed to the breaking point are valid. I've heard one estimation that we would need about 100,000 additional troops just in Baghdad alone to secure that city.

The Iraqi Variable

The one variable, though, that could save the day is Iraqi cooperation with the plan.



The Iraqis are not dumb. They see the writing on the wall. They follow American politics closely, and know that the American people have had it with the war and will not tolerate much more of it.

click to show/hide the rest of this section


Part of the plan is to transfer complete control over Iraqi security to Iraqi forces by November. This is the great unknown. Can the Iraqi's do it? Are they willing to do it? Their military and police are riddled with traitors to the cause, insurgents in hiding who "protect" the Iraqi people during the day, and kill them at night. Is Malaki willing to go after these folks and rid the military and police of them? Is he willing to take on Moqtada al-Sadr, the enemy of peace?

This is the major test for Iraq. American impatience with the war might be a good thing, in that it kicks Maliki in the butt and lets him know it's now or never for him. It's do or die for Iraqi democracy under a unified government. Time has run out.

Safety for Our Troops

I think giving Maliki until November is a reasonable time period. In the meantime, while 20,000 more troops is not enough, it will make our soldiers safer. Despite this, this year will be the bloodiest of all in Iraq, as the insurgents smell victory, and will step up their attacks. Adding 20,000 troops will not tamp down the violence so much as prevent the violence from killing even more Americans than would occur without the troops.

Those opposed to the deployment want our "footprint" in the area to decrease, so that we are perceived less as the occupiers. This makes sense. However, the insurgents are not dumb either. They know our footprint is decreasing anyway, despite the extra 20,000 troops. They know their main enemy now are Iraqis, not Americans. That's why I don't think the extra 20,000 troops will anger anyone more than they are angry now. The effect will mainly be to help keep some semblance of order, to allow the Iraqi government to gear up, and to protect American soldiers from suffering any more casualties than is necessary.


Troop Morale

Whose morale are we talking about? If you are a National Guard and your length of service in Iraq is extended, or if you are activated to go there, your morale might not be high, this I grant. However, do ask the troops on the ground what they think too. I believe that if you query American soldiers on the ground whether a troop increase is a good thing or not, more than 90% of them will say it is a good thing. If I were there, I'd want more buddies around me, wouldn't you?

click to hide most of this section


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 8, 2007

Bush Report Card


Today, I'd like to grade George W. Bush on his performance in office as President of the United States, on the issues that are important to me. I don't pretend to be the authority on this, but present my opinions as one interested voter who is attempting to be honest about his feelings. I invite you to grade him also, on all or some of these issues, or on other issues that might be more important to you; and of course your opinion is just as valid as mine. When speaking of this kind of a grade, there is no such thing as the truth, but rather there is our collective wisdom.

The Initial Decision to Invade Iraq


A+



I believe that the Middle East is changed forever because of this decision, and that there is now a chance for peace in that region because of it.

Conduct of the War in Iraq


D



Actually, I'd give Mr. Bush an F except for the fact that he is finally firing generals and thinking hard about a new strategy. Maybe he'll get it right this time, and then I'll give him a higher grade.

The initial days of the war were a spectacular victory for the U.S., but we went in with too few troops to even guard the arms caches that we discovered. Hence, those looted arms are now the I.E.D.'s that kill our soldiers. We banished the soldiers of Saddam's army and they are now the insurgents. We had too few troops to hold ground we had taken. For example, in Fallujah, we'd go in, wipe out the terrorists, then they'd come back when we'd leave. This was not an effective strategy. I could go on, but I think this war was not waged intelligently.


Conduct of the War in Afghanistan


B



We did a better job in Afghanistan, but the same argument can be made about too few troops. The Taliban is making a comeback; they are using heroin to fund their ventures; and Al-Queda is salivating for the day when the U.S. leaves the area.

Immigration


F-



President Bush is single-handedly ruining our country by turning it into a Third-World nation. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about race. Race and color do not enter into my equation. I'm talking about flooding our nation with uneducated people with no skills, no allegiance to our country, no desire to learn English, and no interest in becoming American. I'm talking about increasing our underclass, prison population, gang membership, and entitlement demands.

Our country has about the dumbest immigration policy in the world. If you are English, check it out, you cannot hope to become a citizen of the United States, even if you have a Ph.d. or an M.D. If you are a gang-banging, drug-running, human-trafficking Mexican, though, we will soon be giving you amnesty. Again, I want it made clear that if you are a doctor, I want you, regardless of your race. If you are a heroin-dealer, I don't want you, regardless of your race. Why on earth do we, the United States of America, under the leadership of George Bush, give preference to the drug dealers, or even just to the underclass, over people that could elevate our nation?


click to show/hide the rest of the post


Taxes


A


Finally an issue where Bush is acting like a conservative, and holding the fort against the communist left and their class warfare.

The Environment


B


I don't think Bush is ruining the environment as the left believes. I think he could be more proactive about alternative fuels, though, as this is also a security issue. I think that Kyoto is unnecessary. Still, going green is not a bad thing, so I don't mind if we move in that direction, as along as we are sane about it.

Vision for America


F


Bush is one of the worst communicators ever in office, not only because of his inability to express himself, but also because of his penchant for secrecy. He is a bit patronizing and reveals only the barest of his thinking on matters. What comes out is a repetition of themes instead of a real discussion with the American people. He pays for this with low poll numbers and a lack of support for his policies.

Social Security Reform


D


The demagogues of the left are winning on this issue because Bush has never adequately explained his position. It's amazing how over half the nation can be so ignorant on this issue, but that's what the Democrats depend on. You could invest your SS funds by throwing darts at a list of stocks and come out way ahead in any thirty-year period over what Social Security will pay you, but the demagogues on the left scream, "He's trying to take your Social Security away," and their non-thinking followers believe it. I don't know if Reagan could have sold the issue any better, but he could have at least made a clearer case for it.

Health Care


B


I give Bush credit for staving off the coming socialism that the Democrats will bring. Here, again, though, Bush has not adequately explained the conservative side of this issue. People are left feeling that government can provide every person in America with gold-standard health care, free, and that it's not doing it just because they're mean and love big business. Health care deserves a credible solution, but it will take an insightful man or woman with great communicative skills to create and legislate it.

Our Reputation in the World


A


Here I differ with most of America, and with most of the world. Oh, well. I am aware that our reputation is not good in the world at present. I don't blame Bush though. I blame the left, the Democrats, the press, and half of the American people. They are the ones who have besmirched our name. Instead of backing their president, they have sided with the idiots in Europe who condemn us for being imperialists, when in reality we are a good nation that battles evil and protects the good. Going into Afghanistan was a good and noble thing. Invading Iraq was a good and noble thing. Standing by Israel is a good and noble thing. We ought to be lauded. Instead, all of Europe and half of America bash us.

click to hide most of this post


My Overall Grade for Bush's Performance


C-



My estimation of the importance of going into Iraq is so high that my grade for Bush is lifted to a C-. I doubly admire him for doing this since most of the world is against him on this issue. The other major issue that is important to me, though, is immigration, and Bush fails miserably on it. So much so, that I teeter on the brink of giving him an overall grade of D- or even an F because of it.

The Future


I have some hope for Iraq, as Bush is finally trying to become a Lincoln, firing his generals and looking for an effective strategy. I have no hope on the immigration issue. The American people are just not paying attention to it. We will wake up one day in a bi-lingual nation with a huge underclass, much more Third-World than even now.

As far as the other issues go, that's what '08 will be about. I see no great Republican champion on the horizon. The fight for the Democratic soul looks interesting, as the Blue Dogs battle the mad dogs of the far left.

Overall, though, we must always remain hopeful. This is the obligation for citizens in a democracy.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 5, 2007

The Zeitgeist

I've Had it With Schwarzenegger


Schwarzenegger eyes health coverage for Calif. Kids:
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Governor

A


rnold
Schwarzenegger is expected to propose extending health care to the 10 percent of California's children who are uninsured, even if they are here illegally, and force firms to bolster adult coverage, officials said on Thursday.

I've had it with Arnold. He has completely flipped now and turned into a Democrat. He is as liberal as Pelosi in my opinion. Arnold now so much enjoys being loved by Californians, who are overwhelmingly left of center at this time in our history, that he buys their central tenet of wanting to give everything to everybody. He is Santa Claus, Jingle All the Way.




For the first time in recent history, this year more people left the state of California than entered, and this includes illegals. A miracle. A marvelous miracle. Now, Arnold is going to change all that. Hey, if you want an i.d., a job, a driver's license, and free health care for your kids, amigos, California is the place to be. Can you say MAGNET?

We will soon be supplying all of Northern Mexico with health care. Great idea Arnold. And how are we going to pay for this? Why, the good old liberal way, with higher taxes; which will drive away businesses, which will lower consumption, which will depress our standard of living. Great. We already need to learn Spanish as our PRIMARY language, but now we'll have to stock up on Mexican flags so we can get in line with our neighbors.

I want to be the first to suggest a recall of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. What was good enough for Grey Davis is good enough for Arnold. Who wants to start the petition? I'll sign it.


The Beauty of the Beast


Nancy Pelosi looked spectacular yesterday as she took the gavel, and she humanized herself by surrounding herself with her beautiful grandchildren. I have to admit that this smiling, charming woman is formidable. I think of her as a dragon-lady, but she certainly didn't project that on her first appearance as Speaker of the House. I also want to make it clear that I am happy we have a female Speaker for the first time. I am looking forward also to our first female President and first black President and first Hispanic president—just please don't let it be Pelosi, Hillary, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, or any other Victocrat communist.

Poor Barack


I am even now disappointed in Barack Obama, since in his book just out he re-asserts his playing the race and victim cards like he did in his earlier book.

He admits he used drugs because he was struggling with an identity crisis as a black man, and he had to "play on the white man's court." Poor Barack. His African kin abandoned him as a child while his white kin stuck by him—yes, he sure was abused by The Man. I am eager to find heroes in our society, but I keep getting disappointed. I thought Barrack was on his way to greatness. Instead, I see he's on his way to Jesse Jacksonism.


Heartbeats Away From the Presidency


By the way, now, Cheney, whose life depends on a pacemaker, will be President should something happen to Bush. Next comes Pelosi, our San Francisco communist treat, should Cheney's pacemaker falter. If misfortune then befalls Pelosi, third in line is Robert Byrd, President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. Our nation is on shakier ground than the Golden Gate Bridge.

Abraham Bush


Bush appears to be trying to emulate Lincoln now. He is firing the generals, something Lincoln did until he finally got his Sherman's and Grant's. I hope that Bush is just as successful with this as Lincoln was. Do we have a Sherman or Grant?

What Have We Done to You Poor Mr. Saddam?


The New York Times as usual is aghast at the treatment of tyrants. They've run daily stories now on poor Saddam's mistreatment at his execution, and the haste of the thing, and the illegality of the thing. Not a word on the people Saddam slaughtered. Typical left-wing sympathy for tyrants, dictators and anti-American sentiments. For years they've been saying we should butt out of Iraq and let the Iraqi's run their own things, but now we should have intervened in the Iraqi trial and execution process to stop this horrible brutality from being perpetrated against the poor Mr. Saddam. The New York Times is a rag.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed


Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,