Political Critic Archives - January 2007

          POLITICAL CRITIC ARCHIVES

                   January 2007

Home


Archives

January 2007

December 2006

November 2006

October 2006

September 2006

August 2006

July 2006

June 2006

May 2006

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

January 2006

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005

July 2005

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 2:07am

Tens of Thousands Gather to Protest War

Over the weekend, tens of thousands of American citizens descended upon Washington, D.C. to protest the ongoing war in Iraq that has already cost 3,065 American lives.  You may not have heard much about this anti-war protest as it received very little attention from the mainstream media.  However, thanks to the power of YouTube and the blogosphere, the demonstrators have been able to get their message out.

 

 In addition to the 3.065 American soldiers that have lost their lives in Iraq, another 22,834 soldiers have been wounded.  Despite these tragic losses, the White House continues to defy the military commanders on the ground by sending more troops into battle.

 

Some extremists believe that troop morale is damaged by a simple war protest.  They view anti-war demonstrators as unpatriotic and un-American.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  These people do not give our troops enough credit.  Our soldiers know very well that they serve to protect the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy in this country.  One of those rights is the ability to speak freely.

 

If American citizens were not allowed to gather in protest of our government, then we wouldn't have much of a country, now would we?  We would be living under a tyranny, not a democracy. 

 

Now there may be some who would prefer a dictatorship (see Bush, George), but I for one would like to keep living in a democracy.

  |


Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:15am

Different Defense Secretary, Same BS

While politicians debate the merits of George Bush's troop surge, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is making a nonsensical argument to anyone that will listen.  Gates claims that the Iraq resolution "emboldens the enemy and our adversaries."  He went on to say that the resolution tells the generals on the ground that they can't have the resources they need.

 

 We have heard this crap before.  Anytime anyone in the United States dares to question the maniacal leadership of the administration, the administration runs out their minions to say that we're emboldening the enemy.  Apparently Gates and the others forget that they are promoting democracy in Iraq...ya know, that's where people are allowed and encouraged to speak their mind.  It's a tough concept for anyone in this administration to wrap their arms around.  They love democracy so long as the people do and say what they want.

 

Secretary Gates also left out the part where the generals on the ground don't want or need more troops.  Nearly everyone outside this administration is against this troop surge, including military commanders.  Unfortunately, these commanders are not allowed to publicly speak out against their boss, the commander in chief, so Secretary Gates likes to use them in his argument, knowing they won't talk back.  Off the record, however, the military brass will tell you that the troop surge is a horrible idea.

 

Secretary Gates appears to be reading from the same script they gave Donald Rumsfeld.  If he doesn't start doing something differently, our boys will still be stuck in Iraq for four more years.

  |


Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 9::30am

Webb Delivers Sharp Response to Bush

As expected, Senator Jim Webb gave a stirring eight minute speech in response to George Bush's State of the Union address.  He did not disappoint.

 

 Senator Webb spoke about how his father, himself, and his son have proudly served in the military.  On Iraq, he stated that President Bush was reckless in bringing us into this unnecessary war and that the failing strategy must be changed immediately. Senator Webb also talked about the economy.  He correctly pointed out that the middle class is losing its place at the table.

 

All in all, it was a great response to the President.

  |


Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 4:30pm

Watch the Democratic Response

After George Bush speaks to the nation tonight in his annual State of the Union address, the Democrats will be responding to what he had to say.  This year, Senator James Webb (D-VA) will deliver the response.  If you recall, Senator Webb has a son fighting in Iraq and almost came to blows with President Bush a couple months back when Bush made a snide comment to Webb about his son.

 

 Senator Webb is expected to touch on a number of issues, including domestic policies, but it will be fascinating to hear what he says about Iraq.  Webb is a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, wrote six best selling novels about war, and served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy in the 1980's. 

 

James Webb is exponentially more qualified to talk about the Iraq War than the President.  He is also a conservative Democrat, so his opinion garners more credibility than most of his Democratic counterparts.

 

Unlike the President, Webb is expected to deliver a short and concise speech.  It should last no more than 10 minutes.  If you care about the Iraq war, you should watch.

  |


Monday, January 22, 2007 - 9:30am

Anybody But Hillary

Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for the presidency over the weekend and is already considered the frontrunner to claim the Democratic nomination.  She has the money to go all the way, but more importantly (sarcasm), she has the last name.  That is what's important after all.

 

 Since January 20, 1989, either a Bush or Clinton has occupied the White House.  That is eighteen full years with only two families representing the interests of hundreds of millions of Americans.  We are already guaranteed to have another two years of George Bush 43.  If Hillary wins, we could be looking at eight more years beyond that.  To make matters worse, Jeb Bush could run for the office down the road.

 

My entire adulthood has had one of these idiots as President.  I could live well into my forties or even my fifties without ever having an American president not named Bush or Clinton.  It must stop!

 

The worst part is that none of them are any good.  Bush 41 served one term and promised to never raise taxes.  He lied.  Bill Clinton then served the next eight years and became one of the dirtiest presidents in our history.  He committed adultery numerous times, perjured himself, obstructed justice, sexually harassed women, had unethical campaign finance practices, pardoned a known felon simply because he had money, and was eventually impeached by the House. 

 

If you didn't think it could get worse after Slick Willy, you would be dead wrong.  Of course, the son of Bush 41 came to office and is now considered the worst president ever, which is no small feat.  The Iraq war, torturing people, warrant-less wiretapping, take your pick.  George Bush is the worst....so far.

 

Now they want to force Hillary Clinton down our throat.  We already know that her husband is a worthless piece of garbage.  We also know that she will do or say anything to get elected.  Much like her husband, she does not offer an opinion on anything until she finds out which way the wind is blowing.  In addition, Hillary Clinton has been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks, was deeply involved in the shady Whitewater real estate venture, and committed insider trading after making $100,000 on a $1,000 investment in only ten months.  The investment was in cattle futures, which I'm sure Hillary was an expert on.  Yeah right!  Of course, she's a Clinton, so she was never prosecuted.  Nope, instead she became a Senator and is now running for the President of the United States.

 

The American people must not elect these thugs, crooks, and dictators into office.  They belong in jail next to all the other common criminals.  Hillary is no exception.  If this country is to move forward, we must elect someone other than a Bush or Clinton.

  |


Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 12:10pm

Pelosi Rips White House on Troops

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tore into the Bush administration yesterday, accusing the president of playing politics with soldiers' lives by moving so quickly on the troop surge.  She stated that Bush was moving to put the troops in harm's way as fast as possible so that the funds for the surge would be granted.

 

Given the evidence, it's hard to argue with Pelosi on this one.  There is virtually nobody supporting this troop surge except for the academic neocons in the White House.  It is the people with no personal stake in this war that seem to be the most willing to commit more Americans into battle.  Bush hid in the National Guard for a few years with an extremely questionable service record, Cheney dodged the draft seven times, Condi is purely an academic, and the rest of them aren't much better.  The last military person in this White House was General Colin Powell, and he left in disgust after the first term.

 

Everything this president has done has been political in nature.  Not that the Democrats are any better, but the president is the commander in chief and has a responsibility to put the soldiers' lives above everything, especially politics.  Unfortunately, he views politics as more important.

 

The Democrats have become much bolder in the past month, helped tremendously by a number of Republicans that have revolted against Bush.  In the coming months, expect the Democrats to sharpen their attacks against the President and against the Iraq war.

  |


Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:30pm

Republicans Revolt Against President Bush

Try as they might, the Democrats are not going to get George Bush change his strategy in Iraq by themselves.  They need Republicans in the House and Senate to come to their side and challenge this president.  Well, it looks like the GOP is finally coming around.  A significant number of Republicans have come out against the so-called "troop surge" and are demanding the president stop placing more American soldiers in harm's way.

 

 A bipartisan, non-binding, resolution on Iraq was introduced by Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) that sharply criticizes the White House's actions.  There are a number of Republicans that are expected to join the Democrats in this repudiation of the president.  Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has already announced she will support the measure and Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR), Norm Coleman (R-MN), George Voinovich (R-OH), Sam Brownback, (R-KS), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) all oppose the troop surge.

 

There are many other Republicans that are opposed to the troop surge and to Bush's overall strategy, but they are afraid to express an opinion that runs counter to their Republican president, dumb as he may be.  Many do not want to sign on with Democrats simply because they are Democrats.  Heaven forbid they put the lives of American soldiers ahead of politics.

 

It remains to be seen if Congress can stop Bush from implementing this surge.  A large number of Republicans must join forces with the Dems or this president will continue to get Americans killed.

  |


Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:15am

Is George Bush Preparing to Attack Iran?

The Bush administration is moving a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf and has also deployed a Patriot missile battalion.  This comes immediately after President Bush threatened the nation of Iran during his speech Wednesday night.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that the U.S. military has increased their activity in the area to respond to "very negative" activity by the Iranians.  Of course, neither Gates nor the administration offered up any proof of what Iran was doing.  I suppose we should just trust them, since they've been soooo trustworthy in the past.

 

The scary scenario is that George Bush is preparing to attack the sovereign nation of Iran.  He has already involved himself in three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia), but I guess that's not enough.  Bush seems to believe that he has the right to invade, bomb, and attack any country that does not do what he tells them to. 

 

Iran is obviously trying to build nuclear weapons.  Why wouldn't they?  If they have nukes, the United States will back off.  Without nukes, the U.S. could attack at any moment.  If you're the leader of Iran, do you really want to stop building weapons that can prevent the world bully from bombing you?  I don't think so.

 

That is the premise that George Bush will tell you when he does bomb.  He'll tell you that Iran is building nukes and that it will threaten the United States.   He won't tell you that they are years, if not decades away from attaining even basic nuclear weapons capability.  Bush also will fail to mention that the only nation ever to use nukes is his own.

 

The Democrats have control of Congress, but it will be up to the GOP to stop this lunatic from starting another war and putting our brave soldiers in harm's way once again.  Many Republicans have stood against Bush when he announced his so-called troop surge last week.  Many more need to follow suit. 

 

The only way to stop the Commander in Chief from invading is to get enough Republicans to stand with the left.  I wouldn't have thought that possible a few weeks ago, but it is becoming more of a possibility.

  |


Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 9:15pm

21,500 Troops to Control a City of Seven Million

George Bush is speaking right now and I have confirmed that he is indeed delusional.  He has admitted what many, myself included, have been saying; that there were never enough American troops in Iraq to clear out a violent area and then hold it.  The delusional part is that he stated that the 21,500 additional troops he is sending will correct that problem.  This could not be further from the truth.

 

Baghdad Skyline PhotoThe ratio of Baghdad residents to each additional soldier is about 325:1.  History of occupations teaches us that the ratio needs to be around 70:1 for the occupying force to establish security and stability.  As you can see, the ratio is nowhere near where it needs to be. 

 

If the United States wants to win this war, they need at least 400,000 troops in Iraq.  They do not have those forces to deploy there.  Bush doesn't want to tell you this, so instead he tells us that increasing the troop levels up to 145,000 will do the trick.

 

The way I see it, the United States has only two real choices.  They can institute a draft to increase the size of the armed forces, which will allow them to reach the 400,000 threshold and win the war in Iraq or they can withdraw entirely.

 

Unfortunately, George Bush is taking option three, which is more of the same.  At this point last year, we had 152,000 troops in Iraq.  We currently have about 130,000 troops on the ground.  Therefore, this increase of 21,500 troops will only bring U.S. forces up to where they already were a year ago.  We already know that number is insufficient for success.

 

Bush is simply putting more American soldiers at risk with no viable plan.  He is also defying his military commanders on the ground.  The House and Senate need to stop his maniacal strategy.

  |


Tuesday, January 9, 2007 - 12:00am

U.S. Attacks Targets in Somalia

The United States attacked the nation of Somalia yesterday, bombing what they referred to as 'Al Qaeda' targets in the southern part of the country.  There is no word yet as to whether those strikes were "successful".

  |


Monday, January 8, 2007 - 12:00am

Democrats Fight Over Troop 'Surge'

It seems that the only one who wants to increase the troops in Iraq is President Bush.  The generals on the ground, the Pentagon, the Democrats, and even a number of Republicans do not want a troop surge.  Unfortunately, none of them are the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military and short of impeaching Bush (if only) or cutting off funding of our own soldiers, there is little they can do to stop him.

 

President Bush wants to increase troop levels by 20,000 - 40,000.  The troop level would grow from about 140,000 to about 175,000.  These new forces would reportedly go to Baghdad to help stop the violence that is out of control. 

 

Bush seems to think that a mere 40,000 additional forces can prevent a city of seven million people from killing each other.  It is not going to happen.  American forces have been close to 175,000 in the past and the violence did not slow down.  Unless the U.S. can double their troop levels, which they cannot, a marginal increase will not stop the civil war.

 

The Democrats will threaten to stop the funding, but they will not do it and Bush knows it.  In the end, he will get his so-called 'surge' and many more American soldiers will be sent off to their death in Iraq.

 

Six months from now, Bush will figure out that his 'surge' plan did not work, but by then it'll be too late.

  |


Wednesday, January 3, 2007 - 12:00am

Darfur to Get More Attention From Ban Ki-Moon

You may not know the name yet, but Ban Ki-Moon is the new Secretary General of the United Nations.  Ki-Moon officially replacing Kofi Annan yesterday and pledged to direct his energies toward helping the people in Darfur.  The Darfur region of Sudan is where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being killed and millions more becoming refugees.

 

 With the verbal approval of the U.S. and other developed countries, the United Nations hopes to place a peacekeeping force in Darfur to help the 7,000 African troops that are currently there.  Thus far, the government of Sudan (who is responsible for the genocide) has refused. 

 

For Ban Ki-Moon to be successful, he needs to get the United Kingdom and the United States to be more forceful toward Sudan.  The government of Sudan is thumbing its nose at the world community and is slaughtering people at will.  Unfortunately, Tony Blair and George Bush are neck deep in Iraq at the moment and have largely ignored the crisis in Darfur.

 

This is another reason for the British and the Americans to get out of Iraq.  It has weakened their position around the world, particularly in Darfur.  Other nations feel free to do whatever they like and the United States is relatively powerless to stop them.

 

Ban Ki-Moon's office is right in New York City, so he should be able to get some face time in Washington any time he wants to bring attention to this catastrophe.  Kofi Annan had already overstayed his welcome, so it'll be good to get fresh blood in there.  Hopefully, Ki-Moon can get Bush and Blair to grow some cajones and take a stand against the Sudanese government.

  |


Home / Site Map

Site Meter

Political Critic - political blogs, conservatives, vlog, liberals, democrats, republicans, video blog, political opinion.

About


Conservative T-Shirts

Anti-Hillary

Bomb Iran

Boycott Venezuela

Capitalist Pig

Chappaquiddick

Conservative Radio

Definition of Is

Fair Tax

First Iraq, then France

Flag Burning

George Pataki '08

George S. Patton

GOP Elephant

Grand Old Party

Heterosexual

Hillary Pres. of France

Illegal Immigration

Infidel

I Love Beaumont

Joe Lieberman

Legal Citizen

Love America

Mitt Romney '08

Mount Rushmore

Move to Canada

Pinko Free Zone

Politically Incorrect

Raised Republican

Real Democrats

Republican Chick

Ronald Reagan

Rudy Giuliani '08

Sam Brownback '08

Shut Up Hippie

Stop the ACLU

Tom Tancredo '08

United Nations

Vast RW Conspiracy

Welcome to America

Winston Churchill

More...