Great discussion on options with Iran, regardless of who the next POTUS is...

Go over to Information Dissemination and read (or join) the discussion on our options vis a vis Iran. While I don't think Obama ought to be saying he's going to unilaterally meet with world leaders such as Ahmadinejad without some strings attached, the point is made that there are few options available to us.

Jay Rockefeller, Take Your Billion Dollars and Shove them all up your @ss

Despite the fact that he has apologized for his remarks about John McCain in particular, and, by extension, the military, Jay Rockefeller is still a rich, good-for-nothing jackass liberal, who woudn't know the truth if it walked up and slapped his pretty-boy botox face.

Let's look at all the things that are wrong in his statement:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet."

First, McCain flew attack aircraft, not fighters. He was shot down flying an A-4 Skyhawk on his 25th combat mission. Finally, although I gave it only a small effort, I can find nothing online to confirm that the Navy used Laser Guided bombs (LGB's) in Vietnam, and not likely in 1967 when John McCain was shot down. The Air Force first started experimenting with the Paveway LGB in 1966, so I doubt any were in Navy inventories in October 1967 when McCain was shot down.

"He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

I think McCain is right to take offense at this. And, had Rockefeller given this any thought or research, he would have seen that McCain told New York Times writer R.W. Apple, after the famous Forrestal fire of 1967, ""It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam."

BTW - Just One Minute has beaten me to the punch on much of this.

Obama vs. McCain Feud Proves Obama Not for Change

The dust-up this week between Obama and McCain on Iraq is emblematic of what Obama is and what he stands for. Let's review the facts and the history very briefly:

1. We invaded Iraq, for whatever reasons, we did it. Whether there were some who were hoodwinked or not into it, those included Democratic Senators Clinton, Kerry, and others. Sure, the most liberal Democrats didn't vote with the President on this. For those Democrats, that was an easy vote.
2. We didn't find mass caches of WMD, and the aftermath was bloody and poorly planned.
3. In 2007, we shifted to the "surge" strategy under General Petreaus and supported vociferously by Sen. McCain. The surge has inarguably worked.

This week, McCain's campaign issues this press release in response to statements Obama made in Tuesday's Ohio debate with Sen. Clinton:

"Last night, we also heard Sen. Obama say that once he withdrew
US forces from Iraq he would 'reserve the right' to act
'if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq,'
Is Sen. Obama unaware that Al Qaeda is still present in Iraq,
that our forces are successfully fighting them every day,
and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would
embolden Al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

In response, Obama unleashed this at a campaign event:

“But I have some news for John McCain, and that
is that there was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq
until George Bush and John McCain decided to
invade Iraq… he took us into war along with
George Bush that should have never been authorized
and should have never been waged.
They took their eye off the people who were
responsible for 9/11, and that would be al Qaida
in Afghanistan that is stronger now than
at any time since 2001.
I’ve been paying attention, John McCain!
That’s the news. So John McCain may
like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden
to the gates of hell, but so far all
he’s done is follow George Bush into
a misguided war in Iraq…”

First off, for the guy who is all about change, this is a typically Liberal reaction to McCain's statement. Obama panders to his far-left, anti-war crowd, who are still "all fired up" over the fact that we went to war with Iraq to begin with. There's no change, Senator Obama, when you're mired in the past. It's a childish, school-yard type response and not what we would expect from the guy who's going to change the way things work in Washington.

But, notice that he starts the reply off with a semi-falsehood, that there was no "al-Qaida in Iraq." While there may have indeed not have been any al-Qaida, nor any of the organization known as "al-Qaida in Iraq," there we certainly terrorists harboring in Iraq, and there was certainly a desire by al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein to cooperate on some levels.

Next, he wants to talk about "should have beens." I honestly ABHOR people who talk this way. It makes for nice flowing rhetoric and all sorts of "I'm smarter than you, because I knew what SHOULDA been," but, it is an attempt to divert attention from what IS the reality on the ground, and how Barack Obama would react to that. Mr. Obama, unless you have a time machine, you don't get to go back and change those votes. So, what are you going to do now?

Next, Obama tells us the real news, and that is, dun-dun-dun, that he's been paying attention! Wow!

Finally, he excoriates McCain for not, in Obama's estimation, doing enough to get Bin Laden. Does this mean that Obama would take the 140,000 troops we have in Iraq and take them all to Afghanistan (and Pakistan), maybe to do a cave-by-cave search? is he making an argument that we don't have the means to fight these two fronts at once? Liberals make the argument that fighting terrorism tends to be useless because for every one of them we call, they come back tenfold, yet, at the same time, they think that if we just chopped off the head (Bin Laden), we'd need n


I know the current talking points today are that a McCain administration is 4 more years of Bush. There is ONE defining issue in this election, it's who will prosecute the War on Terror in a way that keads to victory, and, do the American people believe that victory in Iraq is critical to that final outcome.

It may not be absolutely necessary, but, we're there, and we need to press on. McCain acknowledges that, and is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that victory. Obama and the dems do not.


Nothing here!

McCain for President

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. Since I am away for a couple of weeks, I took advantage of the early voting period and voted last week. So, I have already placed my vote. Interestingly, I listened in a few people's conversations who were also early voting, and at least a couple of women (black) were saying this was the first election they were interested in. That's bad news for Republicans, I believe.

So, after much consternation this season, I decided, after talking to my father and giving it much thought, that I was going to vote for John McCain. I know that may be apostasy to friends I have on the right, but, here is my rationale:

1. The same #1 reason I voted for Bush in 2004, because I think he's the meanest, baddest, most serious candidate who understands the threat of global jihad, and will continue to take the fight to the enemy. Many will say he opposes Gitmo and waterboarding, and those are good points, but here's why they are wrong:
• I don't believe that it really matters where the detainees are held. Gitmo, here, some foreign country, doesn't matter to me. These guys are already being coddled at Gitmo, and the courts and Liberals will continue to push to give them Constitutional rights anyway. So, I think our enemy here is the Courts, not John McCain.
• Although I have done a rotten job completing some of my Joint Professional Military Training, I have gotten far enough to realize that we do have some ethical standards and morals to uphold in this country and as the military in this country. So, if John McCain, as one of the only men in office who was actually tortured, says waterboarding is torture, and he doesn't want it the official policy of the United States, then I accept that. Now, do I wish he had just refused to make a statement, yes, I do, but he has also made clear that in the "ticking (nuclear) bomb" scenario, he'd do whatever is necessary to stop it. I think in McCain, he is making clear that if a decision like that is going to be made, he's going to make it, and he's going to make the right decision.
2. He can win. Look, I like Romney, I liked Thompson, but, the former seems (and I only mean seems, because I don't think he is) an empty suit. I don't believe John McCain is a repeat of Bob Dole. I think Fred Thompson would have been Bob Dole, notMcCain.
   
3. He has said repeatedly that he will appoint judges like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. And, since the next president is going to get to appoint as many as 3 judges in the next 4 years, he has a 1 in 3 chance of getting the nature of the court changed.
   
4. He's serious about controlling spending, to his detriment (see below). I think he'd actually try to cut spending. He was one of the few to vote against Bush's expansion of Medicare, he has said he would reform social security, via private retirement accounts, and take on Medicare and Medicaid. He understands the ticking time bomb those things are, and he is prepared to expend some political capital on them.
   

Let's address the areas where McCain has worked against Conservative causes:

1. Immigration - here McCain was clearly wrong and out of step with most conservatives. But, hey, so was W, and we all voted for him. I don't think anyone that actually ever listened to what W had to say about this issue ever could have not known what W was for. So, McCain just took the same path, as did many Republicans, and how those lined up was largely based on geography and the safeness of their seat. Look, J.D. Heyworth is evidence of what taking a strong stand against immigration in Az will do for you. I also believe that McCain got the message, he can be for border security first, and still get something else done on immigration. I will say that I am not against large numbers of immigrants being allowed into the US from Mexico. Especially given that they are 90% Roman Catholic (and practice it), I see them ultimately as Republican voters and as a firewall against the secularists who want to make Secularism our official state religion. But, I digress...
2. McCain/Feingold - Ok, he was just plain wrong here, and he needs to admit it, but, this was another pre-2004 item that W signed into law. We voted for W in 2004, didn't we?
3. Bush Tax Cuts - Wrong for voting against them, but, if memory serves, he took this tack in the 2000 election, and I think he felt compelled to stick with it, in keeping with his maverick image. At any rate, Republicans go against tax cuts at their peril. I don't think it's likely to happen again. McCain likes to say he wanted spending cuts in exchange, and voted no because they weren't there.
   
4. Stem Cell research - this is becoming a non-issue with recent advances, but McCain has been on the wrong side of it. But, he has been a consistent pro-lifer, and has stated that he thinks Roe should be overturned. On other social issues, he's supported letting States decide issues such as gay marriage. I tend to agree with this approach. There are those that get all apoplectic when candidates don't support a Human Life Amendment, Marriage Amendment, etc to the Constitution. I am a Federalist also who believes that 1) the states are the best places to decide these issues (just like abortion) and 2) they're not going to pass anyway. These are done as stunts, not as serious policy initiatives.
   

Nothing after the jump!

The GOP You Tube Debate - Impressions

I admit, I am only now starting to follow the 2008 race closely and examine the candidate's positions.

I think the BGen and the gay questions were a gimmick put on by CNN. Was this just done because Anderson Cooper is gay?

Tonight's You Tube debate is the first one I have watched this season, and my impressions so far are (in no particular order):

McCain - My personal favorite because of his service to this country and his honesty. I think his age sort of shows through in these debates, but even my 12 year old daughter noticed something special about McCain and said "I like him." He was wrong on immigration, and he was wrong (initially) on the Bush tax cuts, but he's got the right stuff on the War, Life, and government spending. Tonight, I think he's been generally good, just not getting enough air time, and I liked him taking on Paul.

Rudy! - I like Rudy as a leader and think he would kick butt leading the US on the world stage. His social positions are problematic, but, I can live with his promise on judges - as I think Rudy has no problem with Roe being overturned, even if he is pro-choice, and, that's all I ask of a president. Tonight, he gets a lot of air time, but, I don't find him that compelling a speaker to the masses, more of a policy wonkish type.

Romney - After spending some time on the web this weekend, I found Romney to be a compelling candidate. He speaks well, he has all the right positions on my issues, and he's a polished and intelligent speaker. I don't have an issue with his Mormonism, does anyone else? Tonight, I think he's the best speaker and I found his answer on the abortion flip flop great. He needs to stick with it.

Huckabee - I like Huckabee, I have to admit it. And, I think, after researching some of his positions more in depth, people have taken bits and pieces of his record and provided just enough to make him look protectionist, stupid, or naive. It's not so. He's not getting enough air time tonight, but his answer on WWJD is absolutely correct.

Tancredo - Just not interested, although he seems a good guy. But, get out of the race already.

Hunter - Actually haven't spent time on his positions because he has so little traction, but he's a well spoken guy. Too bad he's not going anywhere. His answer on the gays in the military was pretty rotten.

Thompson - I hated his ad and he shouldn't have used an attack ad in this debate. I like Thompson, and he has some detailed plans on his web site (go check them out, www.fredo8.com), but, he just does not excite me. Is he too old?

Ron Paul - The guy is just a fruitcake, especially on the GWOT. Glad that Tancredo spanked him. But, he does have some sensible positions, mainly on fiscal issues. And, I agree with him on departments that need to be cut.

I would be happy with all of these as the nominee (except Ron Paul, who's war position I find scary), but my personal preference today is:

1. McCain

2. Huckabee

3. Romney

4. Fred

5. Rudy

6.Hunter

7. Tancredo